NFTs in the Bitcoin blockchain - Ordinal Theory

[JayJuanGee]

In those kinds of cases, it is best that you account for inflation.. .. whether you account for the various prices in "today's" dollars or in 1956 dollars, otherwise it seems likely that you are going to be confused in regards to the relativity of the price versus the value.

well i don't think it really matters. turning 27k into 227k is only possible using something like real estate. inflation (eroding of the value of the us dollar) that's a given no matter what you do with your money. so all things being equal, multiplying your money by 10 is not bad. what wuold you have if you left your money in a bank account? 

It matters if your buying power is only 1/10 that it was in 1956, then you ONLY have the perception of your house going up (or that you are better off)..

Sure, you are better off to have had a house rather than that poor sucker who kept the money under the mattress or put the money in less appreciating assets, and since we likely are not really disagreeing overall about the idea that some assets appreciate more than others, there is no need for us to go down the list of assets.. ..

...except maybe to mention that bitcoin has been an asset class that has almost exclusively outperformed any other asset class in the past 4-10 years, and  of course, the longer that you have been in (mostly accumulating and HODLing), and not been fucking around with trading, then the more likely that you would have outperformed any other place (asset class) that you could have placed your value.. including real estate (generally speaking).

[1714616588]

1714616588

[1714616588]

1714616588

[cryptosize]

Some people claim it will reach this fiat valuation by 17 June 2023...

how much are they willing to bet? any of them put their money where their mouth is? 

https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1636797265317867520

[larry_vw_1955]

https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1636797265317867520

Code:

I will take that bet.
You buy 1 BTC.
I will send $1M USD.
This is ~40:1 odds as 1 BTC is worth ~$26k.
The term is 90 days.
All we need is a mutually agreed custodian who will still be there to settle this in the event of digital dollar devaluation.
If someone knows how to do this with a smart contract, we can do it on chain, so I can send USDC.
If you won't do that, name a custodian.

I'm not really sure the terms of this bet are what I had in mind. The way he's got the odds at 40 to 1, I'm not sure there's really any benefit for people trying to take him up on that offer. First of all, they're not going to win the bet as btc is not going to be worth $1M in 90 days. Not sure why anyone would waste 1BTC thinking that was going to happen. 2nd of all, in the extremely unlikely event that their longshot bet wins, they pickup about 40 BTC which in today's dollars is only worth 1BTC. So essentially the guy putting up the $1M USD is taking them for a ride. They're only getting 1:1 odds on their "against" bet. What a bunch of dummies.

[NotFuzzyWarm]

Came across an archive with all of Satoshi's posts here in the Forum and one is from Jan 2010 in response to a question asked. The thread deals with what has now become known as ordinals...
Replies 10-12 fit in quite well...

[cryptosize]

https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1636797265317867520

Code:

I will take that bet.
You buy 1 BTC.
I will send $1M USD.
This is ~40:1 odds as 1 BTC is worth ~$26k.
The term is 90 days.
All we need is a mutually agreed custodian who will still be there to settle this in the event of digital dollar devaluation.
If someone knows how to do this with a smart contract, we can do it on chain, so I can send USDC.
If you won't do that, name a custodian.

I'm not really sure the terms of this bet are what I had in mind. The way he's got the odds at 40 to 1, I'm not sure there's really any benefit for people trying to take him up on that offer. First of all, they're not going to win the bet as btc is not going to be worth $1M in 90 days. Not sure why anyone would waste 1BTC thinking that was going to happen. 2nd of all, in the extremely unlikely event that their longshot bet wins, they pickup about 40 BTC which in today's dollars is only worth 1BTC. So essentially the guy putting up the $1M USD is taking them for a ride. They're only getting 1:1 odds on their "against" bet. What a bunch of dummies.

You clearly didn't understand the bet.

[larry_vw_1955]

You clearly didn't understand the bet.

Enlighten us then. But why would I want to hand over 1BTC so that I could win 1BTC in real world value when the odds are stacked against me. The bet is not even odds. It's probably like 1000 to 1 odds against winning the bet maybe even worse odds. That's how people go broke, you know?

[pooya87]

Came across an archive with all of Satoshi's posts here in the Forum and one is from Jan 2010 in response to a question asked. The thread deals with what has now become known as ordinals...
Replies 10-12 fit in quite well...

Apparently Satoshi had never read page 35 of the Standards for efficient cryptography, SEC 1: Elliptic Curve Cryptography published on 2009 on Symmetric Encryption Schemes before writing this wrong reply

Unfortunately, ECDSA can only sign signatures, it can't encrypt messages

Post #15 is a better fit response to the Ordinals Attack (slightly modified below)

It could use a separate infrastructure to pass messages, maybe just put a hash of the message in the transaction to prove that the transaction is for the order described in the message.

I.E. Side Chain.

[cryptosize]

You clearly didn't understand the bet.

Enlighten us then. But why would I want to hand over 1BTC so that I could win 1BTC in real world value when the odds are stacked against me. The bet is not even odds. It's probably like 1000 to 1 odds against winning the bet maybe even worse odds. That's how people go broke, you know?

You have serious reading comprehension issues.

That guy on Twitter is going to lose his bet (1 million USD) if BTC doesn't reach 1 million USD by June 17 2023.

If he wins, the other guy should pay him 1 BTC.

[larry_vw_1955]

You have serious reading comprehension issues.

Well, one of does and it's not me.

That guy on Twitter is going to lose his bet (1 million USD) if BTC doesn't reach 1 million USD by June 17 2023.

try again.

If he wins, the other guy should pay him 1 BTC.

that part is true.

some people don't understand the basics of how betting works. seems like you might be one of them... either that or the guy putting up the $1 million is a complete moron.

[cryptosize]

You have serious reading comprehension issues.

Well, one of does and it's not me.

That guy on Twitter is going to lose his bet (1 million USD) if BTC doesn't reach 1 million USD by June 17 2023.

try again.

If he wins, the other guy should pay him 1 BTC.

that part is true.

some people don't understand the basics of how betting works. seems like you might be one of them... either that or the guy putting up the $1 million is a complete moron.

It's you who's being obtuse here. I receive PMs from longtime members who warn me that you're franky2.

Again: he's going to lose 1 million bucks if BTC doesn't reach 1 million by June 17 2023.

Either he's overly risky or the US will indeed default on its debt by then (if the debt ceiling won't be raised)... chances are he might lose this bet.

Try again.

[larry_vw_1955]

It's you who's being obtuse here. I receive PMs from longtime members who warn me that you're franky2.

why do people care who i am but no one would/should ever mistake me for franky since he is way smarter than me when it comes to bitcoin. 

Again: he's going to lose 1 million bucks if BTC doesn't reach 1 million by June 17 2023.

I don't think so...

but if what you're saying is true then he's being taken advantage of big time. I would have given him much better odds. 

Either he's overly risky or the US will indeed default on its debt by then (if the debt ceiling won't be raised)...

who would risk 40 to win 1 btc on something that has odds of 1 in 1000 or even less of happening? but keep insisting on your view of things...

chances are he might lose this bet.

i mean if he's really betting 40BTC to win 1BTC if btc his 1million by june 17, then he's got to be the dumbest person ever. maybe we should give him more credit than that.

Try again.

let's give him more credit than that and realize that the only way betting 40 to win 1 makes any sense in this situation is if he's betting against it happening. in that case he's kind of got a solid position and the people betting 1btc are idiots. 

[cryptosize]

i mean if he's really betting 40BTC

You're truly dumb with serious reading comprehension issues. Nobody said anything about 40 BTC.

I'm done with you. Go back to elementary school.

[larry_vw_1955]

You're truly dumb with serious reading comprehension issues. Nobody said anything about 40 BTC.
I'm done with you. Go back to elementary school.

after further researching this issue, it looks like the guy putting up the $1 million dollars is an ex coinbase dude

https://azcoinnews.com/ex-coinbase-cto-balaji-srinivasan-puts-down-1-million-bet-on-bitcoins-price-by-june.html

so many people wanted to take his action but of course he could only let just a couple people "get down". so you were right. i was a bit off in my interpretation didn't think it was possible for someone to be as dumb as balaji but there you go.  

he will certainly be losing that cool 1 million. but maybe it represents a small part of his overall portfolio so he'll be ok anyway...

[Wind_FURY]

Came across an archive with all of Satoshi's posts here in the Forum and one is from Jan 2010 in response to a question asked. The thread deals with what has now become known as ordinals...
Replies 10-12 fit in quite well...

Apparently Satoshi had never read page 35 of the Standards for efficient cryptography, SEC 1: Elliptic Curve Cryptography published on 2009 on Symmetric Encryption Schemes before writing this wrong reply

Unfortunately, ECDSA can only sign signatures, it can't encrypt messages

Post #15 is a better fit response to the Ordinals Attack (slightly modified below)

It could use a separate infrastructure to pass messages, maybe just put a hash of the message in the transaction to prove that the transaction is for the order described in the message.

I.E. Side Chain.

I.E. Blockstream's Liquid Network.

I'm very confused why they're forcing themselves to use the Bitcoin blockchain, with its inefficiencies, and inconveniences for NFTs and their BRC-20 tokens. Tokens which are also forced to be NOT truly fungible, NOT divisible, and NOT trustless because Bitcoin itself is very limited for what they want to build. UNLESS, Ordinals is being used as an attack vector.

The name Casey Rodarmor will always be remembered everytime Ordinals is being used as an attack vector. The unlucky guy to have discovered and introduce the Taproot feature.

[larry_vw_1955]

You fucking idiot NOBODY said to divide 1 million USD by the current price of BTC, stop assuming things out of your ass! What the fuck are you talking about?

He offers 1 million USD if he loses the bet (BTC less than 1 million USD by June 17 2023).

He asks 1 BTC if it reaches 1 million USD by June 17 2023.

Comprende?

yeah i got it now but theres no need to use such huge red letters.

Everyone is laughing at your 5-year old brain comprehension skills.

it wasn't a real bet though. real bets don't get done with charities/orginations that you want to benefit if you happen to lose your "bet". 

lets get back on topic though. ordinal theory. you got any theories on ordinals you want to share? 

[Wind_FURY]

I've read through the debates from both sides of the argument and played Devil's Advocate on one side, and then the other. After reading many opinions from early users, technical people, and fellow plebs, I agree with the argument that making an ideological debate out of this is a mistake.

We may not like "their" use case, but Bitcoin was designed to be permissionless and censorship-resistant. That means anyone can use it in the way they want as long as their use case is following the consensus rules. From a technical viewpoint, what changed?

[BrianH]

We may not like "their" use case, but Bitcoin was designed to be permissionless and censorship-resistant. That means anyone can use it in the way they want as long as their use case is following the consensus rules. From a technical viewpoint, what changed?

From a technical viewpoint, Bitcoin's code was changed with the Taproot patch that moved Bitcoin away from being purely a peer-to-peer electronic payment system as Satoshi envisioned, to include the "latest thing". One of the developers referred to this as "security regression." This is not what Bitcoin was designed to be.

Being permissionless and censorship resistant are features of this payment system.

Now that payment system is being halted by a bug that was introduced.

[Wind_FURY]

We may not like "their" use case, but Bitcoin was designed to be permissionless and censorship-resistant. That means anyone can use it in the way they want as long as their use case is following the consensus rules. From a technical viewpoint, what changed?

From a technical viewpoint, Bitcoin's code was changed with the Taproot patch that moved Bitcoin away from being purely a peer-to-peer electronic payment system as Satoshi envisioned, to include the "latest thing". One of the developers referred to this as "security regression."

Please tell me if I'm wrong, but didn't Bitcoin always have the abiity to store arbitrary data pre-Taproot?

Plus "Satoshi envisioned"? That's being ideological, no?

This is not what Bitcoin was designed to be.

Technically it's a permissionless, decentralized, censorship-resistant ledger. Any user, technically, can use it in different ways as long as it follows the consensus rules.

Being permissionless and censorship resistant are features of this payment system.

Now that payment system is being halted by a bug that was introduced.

It's the feature of the network.

[cryptosize]

Bitcoin is something far bigger than a mere currency, but few people realize it so far:

https://twitter.com/JasonPLowery/status/1654870113105870854

[BitcoinTS.org]

Developed by Casey Rodarmor, he built Ordinals to give its users the ability to transfer individual Satoshis between each other by taking advantage of the Taproot upgrade, which can also store NFT data in Taproot script-path spend scripts.

I'm still learning about it by reading and rereading this blog, https://read.pourteaux.xyz/p/illegitimate-bitcoin-transactions

n0nce, pooyah, and others who are technical/high IQ, please ELI-5 for the newbies and the plebs like me. Haha.

Plus what's everyone's opinions/thoughts about Ordinals?

Ordinals are being used for more than just NFT data.

Ordinals can store NFT data and bitcoin token data. There are several different bitcoin tokens in existence.

Here is the Bitcoin Token Standards list:
https://docs.bitcoints.org/