NFTs in the Bitcoin blockchain - Ordinal Theory

[Flexystar]

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?

Technically it should be blockchain which is getting used here and not the bitcoin. Blockchain is the real highway and other coins or tokens are just the vehicle riding on them. In similar fashion Ordinals NFT is using branch on the blockchain.

More specifically “live data correction” can be done on the ordinals while on the regular NFT this upgrade is OFF CHAIN. It means whenever the later one is upgraded it needs to be refreshed on the server to see changes.

Ordinals are ON CHAIN so they are basically updated on the spot.

I’m not sure if it really affects the blockchain or not, but we surely need more space, powerful processors and obviously faster developments in the code to sustain for longer.

[1714214330]

1714214330

[1714214330]

1714214330

[1714214330]

1714214330

[1714214330]

1714214330

[larry_vw_1955]

More specifically “live data correction” can be done on the ordinals while on the regular NFT this upgrade is OFF CHAIN. It means whenever the later one is upgraded it needs to be refreshed on the server to see changes.

Ordinals are ON CHAIN so they are basically updated on the spot.

ordinals are made once and can't be changed. once a monkey always a monkey. 

I’m not sure if it really affects the blockchain or not, but we surely need more space, powerful processors and obviously faster developments in the code to sustain for longer.

yeah well, that's putting a burden on others but yeah i mean who wouldn't disagree with that? except the people that have to pay for it. and spend more working hours doing it...

[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?

Technically it should be blockchain which is getting used here and not the bitcoin. Blockchain is the real highway and other coins or tokens are just the vehicle riding on them. In similar fashion Ordinals NFT is using branch on the blockchain.

Technically, if I'm saying Bitcoin it's the Bitcoin network, which includes the blockchain, but you already knew that. If you don't, just get the context.

More specifically “live data correction” can be done on the ordinals while on the regular NFT this upgrade is OFF CHAIN. It means whenever the later one is upgraded it needs to be refreshed on the server to see changes.

Ordinals are ON CHAIN so they are basically updated on the spot.

Ser? Can you give a more comprehensive explanation?

I’m not sure if it really affects the blockchain or not, but we surely need more space, powerful processors and obviously faster developments in the code to sustain for longer.
 

More data = more resources required.

[Wind_FURY]

I have read through a topic saying that there's a possibility that those building on top of Ordinals, and the BRC-20 "Standard?" are Craig Wright's minions from the Flat-Earthers' Society. I thought it was laughable and from a person who merely wanted drama until I read this,

TLDR

We have analyzed all Ordinal Inscriptions created since Bitcoin block 779832, which marks the introduction of the BRC-20 standard. It appears that 80% of all inscriptions created in early-mid May 2023 belong to a single person or entity that controls a single public key, 117f692257b2331233b5705ce9c682be8719ff1b2b64cbca290bd6faeb54423e. Between March 7, 2023 (the introduction of BRC-20), and May 25, 2023, this entity accounted for 64% of all inscriptions. Their transaction fees amount to 1056 BTC, single-handedly influencing the regime of the entire blockchain.

https://block21m.substack.com/p/most-bitcoin-inscriptions-belong-d6d

Plus the timing of Casey Rodarmor's resignation as lead developer of Ordinals,



Who's the new lead maintainer? What's his background?

[cryptosize]

I have read through a topic saying that there's a possibility that those building on top of Ordinals, and the BRC-20 "Standard?" are Craig Wright's minions from the Flat-Earthers' Society. I thought it was laughable and from a person who merely wanted drama until I read this,

TLDR

We have analyzed all Ordinal Inscriptions created since Bitcoin block 779832, which marks the introduction of the BRC-20 standard. It appears that 80% of all inscriptions created in early-mid May 2023 belong to a single person or entity that controls a single public key, 117f692257b2331233b5705ce9c682be8719ff1b2b64cbca290bd6faeb54423e. Between March 7, 2023 (the introduction of BRC-20), and May 25, 2023, this entity accounted for 64% of all inscriptions. Their transaction fees amount to 1056 BTC, single-handedly influencing the regime of the entire blockchain.

https://block21m.substack.com/p/most-bitcoin-inscriptions-belong-d6d

Plus the timing of Casey Rodarmor's resignation as lead developer of Ordinals,



Who's the new lead maintainer? What's his background?

So what's the gist here?

There's a conspiracy against BTC from big blockers?

[Wind_FURY]

So what's the gist here?

There's a conspiracy against BTC from big blockers?

Gist? No, just questions.

Who is the entity that made 80% of inscriptions?

If the information that user apps built for Ordinals and BRC-20 were also built by devs who made apps for BCash SV, then is the entity and the developers connected in some way?

Plus WHO is Casey Rodarmor? Where was he during the scaling debate, and which side of the debate did he go in favor? What were his other contributions in Bitcoin?

[cryptosize]

Plus WHO is Casey Rodarmor? Where was he during the scaling debate, and which side of the debate did he go in favor? What were his other contributions in Bitcoin?

Maybe he's a new BTC developer.

TBH, I find it quite amazing that BTC traffic/awareness increased so much during a bear market (yeah, we won't see a proper bull run till the next halving).

[gmaxwell]

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.

You're getting tricked by misinformation-- what I suspect is some intentional consensus cracking (especially since we know most if not all of the BRC-20 stuff is being funded by Ayre & related entities) though it might just be confusion.

This stuff doesn't have anything to do with taproot-- to prove this to yourself go start up node software from 2019 before the taproot bip was even proposed and observe that accepts this stuff just fine.

You could potentially attribute the attack to segwit in the sense that it increased the block size which made more room for junk but to the extent that your complaint is that fees have been driven up, the same attack would have worked prior to segwit.  It's also easy to see that people were embedding irrelevant data in Bitcoin long before segwit (fine example being the Bitcoin Whitepaper).

If you want to complain instead that the attack is bloating the blockchain on disk of archival nodes or that its increasing the data that must be transferred during IBD-- then it's fine to criticize segwit but otoh where the hell were you when there was extremely widespread demand for additional capacity? -- it's not like bloating up the chain is a surprising result: it's the reasonable and expected downside of increasing the capacity.

It's important when contemplating an attack to realize that the attackers have every reason to mislead about the nature of the attack and the enabling factors.

Another piece of measing narrative craft-- one I've seen rodarmor fall for, in fact describing his action as a kick in the teeth to bitcoin developers-- is the false claim that these ordinals translations are in any way charged lower fees by the network.  This isn't true.  The network doesn't set fees at all, they're established by the users competitively bidding for access to capacity.  Miners accept transactions in order of most fees per unit capacity down until the block is full.  Every transaction competes equally(*) and needs to pay based on the capacity it uses.

The deceptive discount claim dupes people for two reasons:  The first is because Bitcoin's block limit isn't measured in bytes, it's measured in weight.  But because the limit works on weight so do fee calculations.  If the limits was a limit on bytes (or the complaint was how much space archived nodes are using) but the fees miners demanded were irrationally calculated based on something else then it would be correct to say there was a discount, but there isn't.  The second is because segwit did in fact lower fees-- but it did so purely because it increased capacity resulting in a lower equilibrium fee rate. (Again, that's what people demanded.  Good job, you got what you wanted...)

If someone wants to say "because segwit, witness data like signature or witness-embeded garbage uses less capacity" -- then THAT would be true. Witness data using less capacity remains well justified: it should because it's prunable and doesn't have to be stored long term just to run a node at all.  Making this data use *more* capacity wouldn't diminish its effect on driving up transaction fees, it would *increase it*, because it would be using more capacity which could otherwise be used for other transactions.

To the extent that some misguided idiots want to store data in the blockchain the fact that it uses less capacity than it would without segwit only helps mitigate the harm.

To the extent that high fees are from an attack intending to drive up fees it's irrelevant in any case: no matter how it works the attacker has to pay in the fees of the next best transaction they displace in each block they displace it.

(*) ignoring things like CPFP which make some transactions more profitable then their fees imply due to having high-fee children.

[gmaxwell]

The core devs either didn't foresee this attack vector or they saw it and didn't care enough to prevent it just like they'd prevented similar attack vectors in the past through standard rules.

I looked at the list discussion and see that other than luke people appear to be of the opinion that flooding attacks that drive up fees can't be completely prevented with known techniques-- sure users can block some particular transaction shape (as luke suggests) but the attacker will just make their flood look like something else.  I haven't given it that much thought but it matches my (admittedly rusty) impression.

We saw this back in 2016/2017 with sustained transaction flooding.  So I think it's not true to say that standardness rules prevented attacks like this, market forces for fees limit the attack but to the extent that people have become accustomed to consistently low fees as segwit adoption delivered excess capacity and now consider any elevation a disruption-- I don't think I've seen anyone propose anything that would prevent it more than competition for capacity does.  (Of course, there is always the BSV route: eliminate the capacity limits, let attacker push the chain up to many terabytes in size, drive off all nodes, do they can deploy stuff like "confiscation transactions" without anyone being able to do anything about it...)

Fortunately, this kind of attack is limited in its impact (causes the users choice of higher fees or waiting) and its execution is self limiting because it's extremely expensive (e.g. BRC-20 flood costing millions per day).

The attacks that standardness rules addressed were cases where some weird corner case used a disproportionate amount of resources such that you could exhaust the network without spending much on fees.  Those have mostly been addressed, the ones that remain are still protected against by standardness rules. (They ought to be actually fixed, since miners could still attack with them, but good luck there-- the appetite for making protocol improvements-- especially boring housekeeping ones-- given the toxic environment seems to be approximately zero)

That aside, *most* of the "they" you mention have long since quit working on Bitcoin, including myself (who I think might have been among the more outspoken in standing up against network abuse), and I think there is a snowballs chance in hell of any of them coming back now that it's clear that working on Bitcoin carries a serious risk of personal ruin fighting off billion dollar lawsuits from well funded attackers.  If you don't like it, perhaps count up the _20_ pages of this thread, the hundreds of comments on the subject and compare it to the relative jack shit the wider community has done to defend the developers against that other attack.  Every time it comes up there is inevitably someone "honebadger don't care-ing" it-- yet driving off people from contributing is a serious harm to the extent that sometimes engineering is needed to address other attacks.

If half the effort that has gone into the threads on BCT about this issue was put into dealing with Wright a couple years ago things would be in a doubly so (esp since >80% of BRC-20 traffic is from Ayre funded orgs-- it seems to be litterally another layer of the same attack!).

[NotATether]

Guys, enough of this shitcoin talk here in this thread. There's a nice altcoin forum part where you can share opinions on your beloved shitcoins and discuss all the news, including NFTs on your blockchain etc. This thread is for Bitcoin and ordinals. 

Depending on who you ask, Ordinals might also be labelled as shitcoins.

[Wind_FURY]

Plus WHO is Casey Rodarmor? Where was he during the scaling debate, and which side of the debate did he go in favor? What were his other contributions in Bitcoin?

Maybe he's a new BTC developer.

Obviously, but WHO is he, and what were his other contributions in Bitcoin, or open source? Have you noticed that Google has very little information about him before Ordinals? Plus in gmaxwell's post, why would he tweet something like, "Really a kick in the teeth for the authors of segwit", with an added piece of misinformation.

https://twitter.com/rodarmor/status/1614076795082641410

"Kick in the teeth"? Is he saying that with vindictiveness?

[JayJuanGee]

Plus WHO is Casey Rodarmor? Where was he during the scaling debate, and which side of the debate did he go in favor? What were his other contributions in Bitcoin?

Maybe he's a new BTC developer.

Obviously, but WHO is he, and what were his other contributions in Bitcoin, or open source? Have you noticed that Google has very little information about him before Ordinals? Plus in gmaxwell's post, why would he tweet something like, "Really a kick in the teeth for the authors of segwit", with an added piece of misinformation.
https://twitter.com/rodarmor/status/1614076795082641410
"Kick in the teeth"? Is he saying that with vindictiveness?

I doubt that Casey Rodamor is even close to the "villian" that you are suggesting that he might be.. even if some of the later developments might have been to strive to evolve cardinals/inscriptions into various ways to attempt to attack bitcoin - whether physically and/or socially.   and your harping on his "kick in the teeth" post was already characterized by GMaxwell as a misunderstanding that Rodamor seemed to have had, rather than as if Rodamor was wanting to be "vindicitive" as you seem to want to read into the situation, Wind_FURY.

Rodamor seems to have a decent amount of skills to have had identified ways to get the cardinals/inscription thing going on bitcoin.. within the available rules.. I doubt that he would characterize himself as a new developer, but I recall that he had said that he had worked at Coinbase for a while, and he had said something about reviewing bitcoin code.. and may even participating in some of the discussions around development, which he likely would have to have some programming skills and abilities to know how the cardinal/inscriptions code would fit into being used in bitcoin, since he seems to have had been innovative in terms of the way that ordinals/inscriptions were introduced.. and that it was a kind of niche that no one had previously exploited (whether thinking about exploiting in a good or a bad way... which I am still not presuming ordinals/inscriptions to necessarily be bad even though there seems to be some later evidence that some of the BRC20 angle of the ordinals are being manipulated by Ayer/Wright - even if Greg (Gmaxwell) might not wanted to have wanted to use shittwat Wright's name within this discussion.

Rodamor had discussed cardinals and inscriptions on several bitcoin podcasts and gave reasons why to develop cardinals/inscriptions on bitcoin (and why not do it on shitcoins)... He had quite a few appearances on podcasts - especially right around the time that the cardinals/inscriptions went live in January/February 2023  (do you need me to provide some links? so you can actually listen to the ways that he discusses how he got into the ideas of cardinals/inscriptions), and he even has his own podcast (and has not had a new episode in the last few months)

[Wind_FURY]

Plus WHO is Casey Rodarmor? Where was he during the scaling debate, and which side of the debate did he go in favor? What were his other contributions in Bitcoin?

Maybe he's a new BTC developer.

Obviously, but WHO is he, and what were his other contributions in Bitcoin, or open source? Have you noticed that Google has very little information about him before Ordinals? Plus in gmaxwell's post, why would he tweet something like, "Really a kick in the teeth for the authors of segwit", with an added piece of misinformation.
https://twitter.com/rodarmor/status/1614076795082641410
"Kick in the teeth"? Is he saying that with vindictiveness?

I doubt that Casey Rodamor is even close to the "villian" that you are suggesting that he might be.. even if some of the later developments might have been to strive to evolve cardinals/inscriptions into various ways to attempt to attack bitcoin - whether physically and/or socially.   and your harping on his "kick in the teeth" post was already characterized by GMaxwell as a misunderstanding that Rodamor seemed to have had, rather than as if Rodamor was wanting to be "vindicitive" as you seem to want to read into the situation, Wind_FURY.

I know it's sometimes hard to interpret the tone behind a forum post. I assure you that I was asking for opinions with sincerity if truly there's some vindictiveness in that tweet. Because for me there's a softer way of phrasing it instead of "kick in the teeth", followed by, I'll stop saying it's misinformation, the wrong assumption.

Rodamor seems to have a decent amount of skills to have had identified ways to get the cardinals/inscription thing going on bitcoin.. within the available rules.. I doubt that he would characterize himself as a new developer, but I recall that he had said that he had worked at Coinbase for a while, and he had said something about reviewing bitcoin code.. and may even participating in some of the discussions around development, which he likely would have to have some programming skills and abilities to know how the cardinal/inscriptions code would fit into being used in bitcoin, since he seems to have had been innovative in terms of the way that ordinals/inscriptions were introduced.. and that it was a kind of niche that no one had previously exploited (whether thinking about exploiting in a good or a bad way... which I am still not presuming ordinals/inscriptions to necessarily be bad even though there seems to be some later evidence that some of the BRC20 angle of the ordinals are being manipulated by Ayer/Wright - even if Greg (Gmaxwell) might not wanted to have wanted to use shittwat Wright's name within this discussion.

Rodamor had discussed cardinals and inscriptions on several bitcoin podcasts and gave reasons why to develop cardinals/inscriptions on bitcoin (and why not do it on shitcoins)... He had quite a few appearances on podcasts - especially right around the time that the cardinals/inscriptions went live in January/February 2023  (do you need me to provide some links? so you can actually listen to the ways that he discusses how he got into the ideas of cardinals/inscriptions), and he even has his own podcast (and has not had a new episode in the last few months)

I don't doubt his skills as a coder. I was merely curious what his previous contribitions were, because there's mostly nothing said about him before Ordinals when I do a search.

His opinion and what was he in favor during the scaling debate will truly say a lot about him. I'm not saying it will be good or bad, I'm not here to judge him. Merely curious.

[JayJuanGee]

Plus WHO is Casey Rodarmor? Where was he during the scaling debate, and which side of the debate did he go in favor? What were his other contributions in Bitcoin?

Maybe he's a new BTC developer.

Obviously, but WHO is he, and what were his other contributions in Bitcoin, or open source? Have you noticed that Google has very little information about him before Ordinals? Plus in gmaxwell's post, why would he tweet something like, "Really a kick in the teeth for the authors of segwit", with an added piece of misinformation.
https://twitter.com/rodarmor/status/1614076795082641410
"Kick in the teeth"? Is he saying that with vindictiveness?

I doubt that Casey Rodamor is even close to the "villian" that you are suggesting that he might be.. even if some of the later developments might have been to strive to evolve cardinals/inscriptions into various ways to attempt to attack bitcoin - whether physically and/or socially.   and your harping on his "kick in the teeth" post was already characterized by GMaxwell as a misunderstanding that Rodamor seemed to have had, rather than as if Rodamor was wanting to be "vindicitive" as you seem to want to read into the situation, Wind_FURY.

I know it's sometimes hard to interpret the tone behind a forum post. I assure you that I was asking for opinions with sincerity if truly there's some vindictiveness in that tweet. Because for me there's a softer way of phrasing it instead of "kick in the teeth", followed by, I'll stop saying it's misinformation, the wrong assumption.

Rodamor seems to have a decent amount of skills to have had identified ways to get the cardinals/inscription thing going on bitcoin.. within the available rules.. I doubt that he would characterize himself as a new developer, but I recall that he had said that he had worked at Coinbase for a while, and he had said something about reviewing bitcoin code.. and may even participating in some of the discussions around development, which he likely would have to have some programming skills and abilities to know how the cardinal/inscriptions code would fit into being used in bitcoin, since he seems to have had been innovative in terms of the way that ordinals/inscriptions were introduced.. and that it was a kind of niche that no one had previously exploited (whether thinking about exploiting in a good or a bad way... which I am still not presuming ordinals/inscriptions to necessarily be bad even though there seems to be some later evidence that some of the BRC20 angle of the ordinals are being manipulated by Ayer/Wright - even if Greg (Gmaxwell) might not wanted to have wanted to use shittwat Wright's name within this discussion.

Rodamor had discussed cardinals and inscriptions on several bitcoin podcasts and gave reasons why to develop cardinals/inscriptions on bitcoin (and why not do it on shitcoins)... He had quite a few appearances on podcasts - especially right around the time that the cardinals/inscriptions went live in January/February 2023  (do you need me to provide some links? so you can actually listen to the ways that he discusses how he got into the ideas of cardinals/inscriptions), and he even has his own podcast (and has not had a new episode in the last few months)

I don't doubt his skills as a coder. I was merely curious what his previous contribitions were, because there's mostly nothing said about him before Ordinals when I do a search.

His opinion and what was he in favor during the scaling debate will truly say a lot about him. I'm not saying it will be good or bad, I'm not here to judge him. Merely curious.

Of course, it is not easy to judge character of any of the people in the bitcoin space, and sometimes they might seem genuine, but really have evil motives... so sometimes any of us might go by our own hunches, and even though Rodamor is not completely famous, there is quite a bit of content out there of him participating in interviews, discussions, talking about himself and talking about his views of bitcoin and various bitcoin related matters, including arts and some of his distastes that has evolved regarding scams in the shitcoin space (especially ethereum).   I just happened to have had listened to most (if not all) of the Hell Podcast episodes after I had heard Rodamor in an interview in some other podcast  (probably around the end of 2022), and Rodamor is pretty well liked (and even trusted to be a genuine and good actor) by a lot of folks in the bitcoin maximalist circles, even though some of the bitcoin maximalists did not really like some of what he had done in regards to cardinals/inscriptions, but I think that Rodamor has been able to defend himself quite well in terms of working within the code and largely having decently good intentions in terms of trying to expand bitcoin's use cases.. and I am not even suggesting that I necessarily agree with him and/or all of the points that he makes.. and surely I have not been hearing (or seeing him) much in the past couple of months, including that I doubt that he had much involvement in the BRC20 developments...

I don't have any problem with your wanting to be skeptical of motives of some persons in the bitcoin space, including persons that you don't know very well in terms of having had not seen their content, but I doubt that Rodamor is as evasive and lacking as content as you seem to be making him out to be, and likely when you are making superficial assertions about his potential vindictiveness or evil intents, you may well be getting that kind of information from bad and/or ill-informed sources... even if Greg was one of your sources.. hahahahahaha for the "kick in the teeth" reference.

[gmaxwell]

I think it's usually useless to debate motivations: either it's unambiguous, in which case there is no debate... or it's not and there will be no resolution.  Ultimately what matters is what people do, not what motivates them.  If something is explainable as confusion or benign greed, it's prudent to stick with that assumption until facts show otherwise both because it's more likely to be true but also because it has less collateral damage if you're wrong.

As far as the quote--  Your guess is as good as mine as to the intended tone, it's probably a mistake to assume much about it.  It can be extremely difficult to figure out the correct tone from text,  something I know all too well as someone who writes messages intended to sound playful but get received by many as a particularly forceful sermon.  

That said, It's easy to be popular with almost any identifiable clique:  Just yell the party lines louder than other people, hate on the right enemies, cheer on the right heros.  So much so that excessive popularity with an identifiable group can be a red-flag:  People who are genuine will usually have some unpopular opinions, they'll usually have better things to do with their time than sing from the hymn book all day long.   Bitcoin and the adjacent altcoin ecosystems have been full of bad actors using the popularity play book: Even early on many of the top rated OTC participants were scammers.  Plenty of loud twitter voices promoting Bitcoin turned out to only doing it to form a following to sell their scamcoin to... even Craig Wright totally suckered a big swath of large block bitcoiners[1] by saying what they wanted to hear. ([1] whom I disagreed with, but at least the general position was one a (confused) person could honestly adopt... not a con, but Wright managed to turn many people into con-co-conspirators by playing to their biases)

This isn't to say that disagreeable people are more trustworthy,  I think the compulsively disagreeable are even more likely to be bad actors.  There really just isn't a magic formula to figure out good motivations from bad.  But we don't have to-- unless you're shopping for a spouse you don't need to worry about judging people, just consider their actions and your responses.

[Wind_FURY]

Plus WHO is Casey Rodarmor? Where was he during the scaling debate, and which side of the debate did he go in favor? What were his other contributions in Bitcoin?

Maybe he's a new BTC developer.

Obviously, but WHO is he, and what were his other contributions in Bitcoin, or open source? Have you noticed that Google has very little information about him before Ordinals? Plus in gmaxwell's post, why would he tweet something like, "Really a kick in the teeth for the authors of segwit", with an added piece of misinformation.
https://twitter.com/rodarmor/status/1614076795082641410
"Kick in the teeth"? Is he saying that with vindictiveness?

I doubt that Casey Rodamor is even close to the "villian" that you are suggesting that he might be.. even if some of the later developments might have been to strive to evolve cardinals/inscriptions into various ways to attempt to attack bitcoin - whether physically and/or socially.   and your harping on his "kick in the teeth" post was already characterized by GMaxwell as a misunderstanding that Rodamor seemed to have had, rather than as if Rodamor was wanting to be "vindicitive" as you seem to want to read into the situation, Wind_FURY.

I know it's sometimes hard to interpret the tone behind a forum post. I assure you that I was asking for opinions with sincerity if truly there's some vindictiveness in that tweet. Because for me there's a softer way of phrasing it instead of "kick in the teeth", followed by, I'll stop saying it's misinformation, the wrong assumption.

Rodamor seems to have a decent amount of skills to have had identified ways to get the cardinals/inscription thing going on bitcoin.. within the available rules.. I doubt that he would characterize himself as a new developer, but I recall that he had said that he had worked at Coinbase for a while, and he had said something about reviewing bitcoin code.. and may even participating in some of the discussions around development, which he likely would have to have some programming skills and abilities to know how the cardinal/inscriptions code would fit into being used in bitcoin, since he seems to have had been innovative in terms of the way that ordinals/inscriptions were introduced.. and that it was a kind of niche that no one had previously exploited (whether thinking about exploiting in a good or a bad way... which I am still not presuming ordinals/inscriptions to necessarily be bad even though there seems to be some later evidence that some of the BRC20 angle of the ordinals are being manipulated by Ayer/Wright - even if Greg (Gmaxwell) might not wanted to have wanted to use shittwat Wright's name within this discussion.

Rodamor had discussed cardinals and inscriptions on several bitcoin podcasts and gave reasons why to develop cardinals/inscriptions on bitcoin (and why not do it on shitcoins)... He had quite a few appearances on podcasts - especially right around the time that the cardinals/inscriptions went live in January/February 2023  (do you need me to provide some links? so you can actually listen to the ways that he discusses how he got into the ideas of cardinals/inscriptions), and he even has his own podcast (and has not had a new episode in the last few months)

I don't doubt his skills as a coder. I was merely curious what his previous contribitions were, because there's mostly nothing said about him before Ordinals when I do a search.

His opinion and what was he in favor during the scaling debate will truly say a lot about him. I'm not saying it will be good or bad, I'm not here to judge him. Merely curious.

Of course, it is not easy to judge character of any of the people in the bitcoin space, and sometimes they might seem genuine, but really have evil motives... so sometimes any of us might go by our own hunches, and even though Rodamor is not completely famous, there is quite a bit of content out there of him participating in interviews, discussions, talking about himself and talking about his views of bitcoin and various bitcoin related matters, including arts and some of his distastes that has evolved regarding scams in the shitcoin space (especially ethereum).   I just happened to have had listened to most (if not all) of the Hell Podcast episodes after I had heard Rodamor in an interview in some other podcast  (probably around the end of 2022), and Rodamor is pretty well liked (and even trusted to be a genuine and good actor) by a lot of folks in the bitcoin maximalist circles, even though some of the bitcoin maximalists did not really like some of what he had done in regards to cardinals/inscriptions, but I think that Rodamor has been able to defend himself quite well in terms of working within the code and largely having decently good intentions in terms of trying to expand bitcoin's use cases.. and I am not even suggesting that I necessarily agree with him and/or all of the points that he makes.. and surely I have not been hearing (or seeing him) much in the past couple of months, including that I doubt that he had much involvement in the BRC20 developments...

I don't have any problem with your wanting to be skeptical of motives of some persons in the bitcoin space, including persons that you don't know very well in terms of having had not seen their content,

I'm not skeptical of his motives, I'm just curious on what he was in favor for during the scaling debate, Segwit or bigger blocks. Merely a personal curiosity, although he's a smart guy. He probably supported Segwit.

Since you said that you have listened to all of the episodes in his podcast, then you probably have heard him talk about his viewpoint?

but I doubt that Rodamor is as evasive and lacking as content as you seem to be making him out to be, and likely when you are making superficial assertions about his potential vindictiveness or evil intents, you may well be getting that kind of information from bad and/or ill-informed sources... even if Greg was one of your sources.. hahahahahaha for the "kick in the teeth" reference.

I never said or suggested he's evasive, but there is lacking content about what he was doing before Ordinals. I also never said that he was vindictive, I asked what everyone thought about his proclamation in his tweet, whether it sounded vindictive or not.

Plus gmaxwell isn't the source, Casey literally posted it himself in a tweet.

I think it's usually useless to debate motivations: either it's unambiguous, in which case there is no debate... or it's not and there will be no resolution.  

You're right, I'll stop asking.

 

[ABCbits]

Maybe he's a new BTC developer.

Obviously, but WHO is he, and what were his other contributions in Bitcoin, or open source?

If you bother check his GitHub page at https://github.com/casey/, it looks like he write some Rust library/software with decent amount of stars.

Have you noticed that Google has very little information about him before Ordinals?

Little, but it's good enough to give rough idea what he does. Few example i found from quick search,
https://www.fastcompany.com/3058499/this-oculus-rift-engineer-taught-a-neural-network-to-create-80s-bbs-graffiti-art
https://stackoverflow.com/users/66450/casey-rodarmor
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/what-is-the-future-of-bitcoin-privacy
https://www.mobygames.com/person/114951/casey-rodarmor/

[JayJuanGee]

[edited out ]

Since you said that you have listened to all of the episodes in his podcast, then you probably have heard him talk about his viewpoint?

Seems to me that I listened to a lot of podcasts in which Rodamor was at least one of the participants, and I would not claim to listen to or understand any of substantive meaning, yet I still know that there is a lot of podcast content that I mentioned to you and even provided a link to one of them in which Rodamor shared in hosting it, so that if you, yourself, had wanted to listen to Rodamor, then you could do that. 

To the extent to which that you were "asking questions" rather than making accusations in regards to Rodamor, to me, sometimes it seems that a certain amount of work, research looking into the matter and exploration is better to be made when throwing out certain seemingly FUD spreading theories about negative motives that anyone might have (especially if it seems possible to me that you likely had been getting some of your nonsense thoughts from questionable sources (or maybe you just come up with them on your own).. even if one of them might not have had been Greg.. hahahahaha - because the actual source (Rodamor's tweet) provided you ammunition to extrapolate nonsense, seemingly dumb and ill-explored thoughts from that relatively small piece of information).... (hahahahahaha - and I am not even hating on you)

Maybe he's a new BTC developer.

Obviously, but WHO is he, and what were his other contributions in Bitcoin, or open source?

If you bother check his GitHub page at https://github.com/casey/, it looks like he write some Rust library/software with decent amount of stars.

Have you noticed that Google has very little information about him before Ordinals?

Little, but it's good enough to give rough idea what he does. Few example i found from quick search,
https://www.fastcompany.com/3058499/this-oculus-rift-engineer-taught-a-neural-network-to-create-80s-bbs-graffiti-art
https://stackoverflow.com/users/66450/casey-rodarmor
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/what-is-the-future-of-bitcoin-privacy
https://www.mobygames.com/person/114951/casey-rodarmor/

Here's another couple of great examples where some more information could be found for anyone who might even be trying to be informed about his/her assertions about (what might be)... . thanks for showing some of that likely quickie further research ETFbitcoin....

[serveria.com]

Guys, enough of this shitcoin talk here in this thread. There's a nice altcoin forum part where you can share opinions on your beloved shitcoins and discuss all the news, including NFTs on your blockchain etc. This thread is for Bitcoin and ordinals. 

Depending on who you ask, Ordinals might also be labelled as shitcoins.

They're even worse than that. Shitcoins are just sitting in their respective god-forgotten blockchains and not causing any damage to Bitcoin users. Not spamming anyone, not interfering with blockchain processes. I wish Ordinals were like shitcoins. 

[Wind_FURY]

[edited out ]

Since you said that you have listened to all of the episodes in his podcast, then you probably have heard him talk about his viewpoint?

Seems to me that I listened to a lot of podcasts in which Rodamor was at least one of the participants, and I would not claim to listen to or understand any of substantive meaning, yet I still know that there is a lot of podcast content that I mentioned to you and even provided a link to one of them in which Rodamor shared in hosting it, so that if you, yourself, had wanted to listen to Rodamor, then you could do that.  

To the extent to which that you were "asking questions" rather than making accusations in regards to Rodamor, to me, sometimes it seems that a certain amount of work, research looking into the matter and exploration is better to be made when throwing out certain seemingly FUD spreading theories about negative motives that anyone might have (especially if it seems possible to me that you likely had been getting some of your nonsense thoughts from questionable sources (or maybe you just come up with them on your own).. even if one of them might not have had been Greg.. hahahahaha - because the actual source (Rodamor's tweet) provided you ammunition to extrapolate nonsense, seemingly dumb and ill-explored thoughts from that relatively small piece of information)....

If that's how your mind works, then OK, I will have nothing more to say. I have taken enough crap from franky1 A.K.A. franknbeans to know that something will be a never-ending debate about nothing. I'll put you in my ignore list for now.

(hahahahahaha - and I am not even hating on you)

Who said you were hating on anyone?

 

ANYWAY, without derailing the topic any further, I'll requote a post by gmaxwell that everyone should actually read, and learn from.

Many people probably, for the right or wrong reasons, don't agree with the Core Developers, but I believe their hearts are in the right place.

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.

You're getting tricked by misinformation-- what I suspect is some intentional consensus cracking (especially since we know most if not all of the BRC-20 stuff is being funded by Ayre & related entities) though it might just be confusion.

This stuff doesn't have anything to do with taproot-- to prove this to yourself go start up node software from 2019 before the taproot bip was even proposed and observe that accepts this stuff just fine.

You could potentially attribute the attack to segwit in the sense that it increased the block size which made more room for junk but to the extent that your complaint is that fees have been driven up, the same attack would have worked prior to segwit.  It's also easy to see that people were embedding irrelevant data in Bitcoin long before segwit (fine example being the Bitcoin Whitepaper).

If you want to complain instead that the attack is bloating the blockchain on disk of archival nodes or that its increasing the data that must be transferred during IBD-- then it's fine to criticize segwit but otoh where the hell were you when there was extremely widespread demand for additional capacity? -- it's not like bloating up the chain is a surprising result: it's the reasonable and expected downside of increasing the capacity.

It's important when contemplating an attack to realize that the attackers have every reason to mislead about the nature of the attack and the enabling factors.

Another piece of measing narrative craft-- one I've seen rodarmor fall for, in fact describing his action as a kick in the teeth to bitcoin developers-- is the false claim that these ordinals translations are in any way charged lower fees by the network.  This isn't true.  The network doesn't set fees at all, they're established by the users competitively bidding for access to capacity.  Miners accept transactions in order of most fees per unit capacity down until the block is full.  Every transaction competes equally(*) and needs to pay based on the capacity it uses.

The deceptive discount claim dupes people for two reasons:  The first is because Bitcoin's block limit isn't measured in bytes, it's measured in weight.  But because the limit works on weight so do fee calculations.  If the limits was a limit on bytes (or the complaint was how much space archived nodes are using) but the fees miners demanded were irrationally calculated based on something else then it would be correct to say there was a discount, but there isn't.  The second is because segwit did in fact lower fees-- but it did so purely because it increased capacity resulting in a lower equilibrium fee rate. (Again, that's what people demanded.  Good job, you got what you wanted...)

If someone wants to say "because segwit, witness data like signature or witness-embeded garbage uses less capacity" -- then THAT would be true. Witness data using less capacity remains well justified: it should because it's prunable and doesn't have to be stored long term just to run a node at all.  Making this data use *more* capacity wouldn't diminish its effect on driving up transaction fees, it would *increase it*, because it would be using more capacity which could otherwise be used for other transactions.

To the extent that some misguided idiots want to store data in the blockchain the fact that it uses less capacity than it would without segwit only helps mitigate the harm.

To the extent that high fees are from an attack intending to drive up fees it's irrelevant in any case: no matter how it works the attacker has to pay in the fees of the next best transaction they displace in each block they displace it.

(*) ignoring things like CPFP which make some transactions more profitable then their fees imply due to having high-fee children.