NFTs in the Bitcoin blockchain - Ordinal Theory

[vjudeu]

How can my friends verify my show off claims of having special sats? Can they see my address on block explorers with ordinals attached to it?

https://ordiscan.com/

[1714688134]

1714688134

[1714688134]

1714688134

[1714688134]

1714688134

[cryptosize]

How can my friends verify my show off claims of having special sats? Can they see my address on block explorers with ordinals attached to it?

https://ordiscan.com/

As I said, I couldn't care less about (physical or digital) art, but yeah, that's a possible solution.

[digaran]

I need to go to ordiscan.com for that? Immutability right? So in other words, there are no actual proofs of ownership, because I could as well launch my own digscan.com and show people their imaginary "super special" sats.

I congratulate you guys for being so smart, but no complements for miners, they are just eating their own tail like a hungry snake, not realizing it's their own body.

[vjudeu]

I need to go to ordiscan.com for that? Immutability right?

You asked specifically about block explorers, so you got an answer related to that. But yes, you can run some full node, or SPV node, and not use any block explorer, and it will work fine.

So in other words, there are no actual proofs of ownership, because I could as well launch my own digscan.com and show people their imaginary "super special" sats.

Congratulations, you just noticed, that Ordinals are not about ownership at all. They are all about cloud storage, and pushing data on-chain. No ownership is enforced. If you upload the Bitcoin whitepaper, it doesn't mean that you "own" it. And if you take some existing image, owned by someone else, and change one pixel, or even upload a copy, without changing anything, then you are still not "an owner" of this image.

I congratulate you guys for being so smart, but no complements for miners, they are just eating their own tail like a hungry snake, not realizing it's their own body.

Yes, but note that if you are a miner, then you don't need to run a full node. Which means, that miners in centralized pools, just receive 80-byte headers, and they simply hash it, without thinking how big the real blocks are, and what is inside. Because guess what: in centralized pools, miners cannot change the blocks they mine, because they have to produce it in a way, enforced by pool operators.

[philipma1957]

I need to go to ordiscan.com for that? Immutability right? So in other words, there are no actual proofs of ownership, because I could as well launch my own digscan.com and show people their imaginary "super special" sats.

I congratulate you guys for being so smart, but no complements for miners, they are just eating their own tail like a hungry snake, not realizing it's their own body.

 It is not miners. It users that insist on thinking that it is okay to move small amounts of btc.

1)Ban all btc sends under 0.0001 btc = foolish users not miners
2)ban all zero fee white listed trans actions = pool owners = very rich people that may or may not mine commerically
3)make 0.0001 the smallest fee possible

If you do the three above things would change, but scrypt's 12x blocks per hour edge will still exist so small fee small value sends will always work better with scrypt.

[Randomxuser444]

Fricking Ordinals causing trx fee so high even at the weekend 
This is not "begin your own bank" looks like 
I have been wait the whole week to transfer my btc, but if I do %20 of the amount will go to fee.
Stupid NFTers go FUS 

[Wind_FURY]

Anyone else heard of the Sophon bot that snipes brc-20 in the mempool and front-run them?

Front-run them? By paying higher on-chain fees? That would absolutely make the fees higher and the network more congested, no? He's not making the situation better for the users in general in my opinion.

Looks like this was the reason why we had an inscriptions break last month...

https://decrypt.co/205377/a-bitcoin-devs-bot-bucked-brc-20s-now-he-might-share-the-sophon-with-the-world

Is it currently running? Because it could also be the reason why we're having record-breaking fees. Perhaps it was better to let users use the blockchain?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[GreenPanda]

Anyone else heard of the Sophon bot that snipes brc-20 in the mempool and front-run them?

Front-run them? By paying higher on-chain fees? That would absolutely make the fees higher and the network more congested, no? He's not making the situation better for the users in general in my opinion.

Looks like this was the reason why we had an inscriptions break last month...

https://decrypt.co/205377/a-bitcoin-devs-bot-bucked-brc-20s-now-he-might-share-the-sophon-with-the-world

Is it currently running? Because it could also be the reason why we're having record-breaking fees. Perhaps it was better to let users use the blockchain?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

From what I heard and read in the article, it doesn't just front-run the brc-20 in the mempool, it changes also the mint amount to 1 which spoil the whole transaction. (Please somebody correct me if I'm wrong)

From the article: "The Sophon was activated on October 3, and text-based inscriptions plummeted 72% to 13,700 from 49,000 the day before..."

Yes, the bot pays higher fees at the moment brc-20 get detected, but creates disruption for inscriptions hence overall fees lessen.

it says in the article that the bot lacked funds to operate around october 23rd which is when the inscriptions fees rose exponentially again.

So in theory it is not running right now. Not saying this bot is a gamechanger but it could be a fun little tool to spoil the token minting / inscriptions on Bitcoin...

[philipma1957]

Anyone else heard of the Sophon bot that snipes brc-20 in the mempool and front-run them?

Front-run them? By paying higher on-chain fees? That would absolutely make the fees higher and the network more congested, no? He's not making the situation better for the users in general in my opinion.

Looks like this was the reason why we had an inscriptions break last month...

https://decrypt.co/205377/a-bitcoin-devs-bot-bucked-brc-20s-now-he-might-share-the-sophon-with-the-world

Is it currently running? Because it could also be the reason why we're having record-breaking fees. Perhaps it was better to let users use the blockchain?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

From what I heard and read in the article, it doesn't just front-run the brc-20 in the mempool, it changes also the mint amount to 1 which spoil the whole transaction. (Please somebody correct me if I'm wrong)

From the article: "The Sophon was activated on October 3, and text-based inscriptions plummeted 72% to 13,700 from 49,000 the day before..."

Yes, the bot pays higher fees at the moment brc-20 get detected, but creates disruption for inscriptions hence overall fees lessen.

it says in the article that the bot lacked funds to operate around october 23rd which is when the inscriptions fees rose exponentially again.

So in theory it is not running right now. Not saying this bot is a gamechanger but it could be a fun little tool to spoil the token minting / inscriptions on Bitcoin...

It would be nice to see it be fired up as it would be a huge fee saver if it works. I suspect it does not work since the cost to run it was very small and why wouldn't someone cut a deal with its creator to run it.

[takuma sato]

Fees reaching 2018 bubble times, mempool.space site is useful to see this in graphical form. To me this seems like it will be used by Blackrock et al to push another hard fork war that's supported by fiat gateways, this is quite predictable actually, it's the only reason they would allow an ETF to begin with, TPTB wouldn't allow it if it wasn't to control it or at least attempt at doing so.

As far as Ordinals, I don't even know what are those but from what I've read is "NFTs on the Bitcoin blockchain", that was enough for me to not read any further.

[casperBGD]

Anyone else heard of the Sophon bot that snipes brc-20 in the mempool and front-run them?

Front-run them? By paying higher on-chain fees? That would absolutely make the fees higher and the network more congested, no? He's not making the situation better for the users in general in my opinion.

agree here, it does not look as a good solution for Ordinals
if it front-runs them with higher fees, that will just introduce positive loop in the market, where Ordinals users will try with higher fees, and bot will up it again

~snip
Yes, the bot pays higher fees at the moment brc-20 get detected, but creates disruption for inscriptions hence overall fees lessen.
~snip
So in theory it is not running right now. Not saying this bot is a gamechanger but it could be a fun little tool to spoil the token minting / inscriptions on Bitcoin...

maybe this is a use case, run in by days to lower Ordinals number, but I don't think this could be long-term solution, just having fun by some days, but on a high price

[philipma1957]

looks like 35-40 sats would work okay so down a bit





 last 10 blocks fees average under 0.5 btc

used blockchain.com and pull the info I wanted to show

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/blocks

'818,968 0.37BTC

818,967 0.41BTC

818,966 0.43BTC

818,965 0.58BTC

818,964 0.50BTC

818,963 0.33BTC

818,962 0.56BTC

818,961 0.46BTC

818,960 0BTC

818,959 0 .53'

[HmmMAA]

If the situation continues miners will have their best christmas ever . Looks like the hype isn't cooling down , ordi is now at more than 50000 times the money cost to inscribe . That gives a lot of ammo to the inscribers to continue .

[cryptosize]

If the situation continues miners will have their best christmas ever . Looks like the hype isn't cooling down , ordi is now at more than 50000 times the money cost to inscribe . That gives a lot of ammo to the inscribers to continue .

That's why miners wouldn't want big blocks.

[Wind_FURY]

If the situation continues miners will have their best christmas ever . Looks like the hype isn't cooling down , ordi is now at more than 50000 times the money cost to inscribe . That gives a lot of ammo to the inscribers to continue .

That gives bad actors the opportunity to build a months/years long sustainable ecosystem to price many users out from using the network. The "protocol" of Ordinals by itself is not the attack, but it could be used as an attack vector. It's going to be an annoying few months until the hype goes down, but it might not be the end of that. It goes, then it comes back.

That aside, Luke Dash Jr. released a new version of Bitcoin Knots, "fixing" the bug called Ordinals.

PSA: “Inscriptions” are exploiting a vulnerability in #Bitcoin Core to spam the blockchain. Bitcoin Core has, since 2013, allowed users to set a limit on the size of extra data in transactions they relay or mine (`-datacarriersize`). By obfuscating their data as program code, Inscriptions bypass this limit.

This bug was recently fixed in Bitcoin Knots v25.1. It took longer than usual due to my workflow being severely disrupted at the end of last year (v24 was skipped entirely).

Bitcoin Core is still vulnerable in the upcoming v26 release. I can only hope it will finally get fixed before v27 next year.

https://twitter.com/lukedashjr/status/1732204937466032285?s=12&t=fx2RmsbaS0qNJTJTdpNu2w

Anti-Ordinals users should start running that.

[d5000]

Finally ORDI crashed 20%, maybe the 65$ were really the top. SATS and others are already falling for some days. But we had such crashes before, so I'm afraid they could try another pump.

If the situation continues miners will have their best christmas ever

Conspiracy theory: it's the miners who orchestrate the ORDI pump to not only lure people in and try to profit from the pump-and-dump, but also for them to inscribe new tokens and rise the fees.  

That aside, Luke Dash Jr. released a new version of Bitcoin Knots, "fixing" the bug called Ordinals.

Unfortunately, this would not fix the "bug", as I have explained multiple times. BRC-20 transactions, which are causing the congestion, aren't bigger than normal transactions with a handful of inputs/outputs (they have about 400-500 vByte plus another 110+ vByte for the commit transaction). They are an inefficient protocol with several WTF decisions (like storing data as text, and needing two transactions for a transfer), but not even that is the problem, the problem is their amount due to the "minting" hype. Big inscriptions, which should be dropped from the mempool by Luke Jr's version, aren't the problem anymore.

[mikeywith]

Unfortunately, this would not fix the "bug", as I have explained multiple times. BRC-20 transactions, which are causing the congestion, aren't bigger than normal transactions with a handful of inputs/outputs (they have about 400-500 vByte plus another 110+ vByte for the commit transaction). They are an inefficient protocol with several WTF decisions (like storing data as text, and needing two transactions for a transfer), but not even that is the problem, the problem is their amount due to the "minting" hype.

BRC-20 transaction patterns could be identified regardless of their size, so a complete "block" is technically possible, Luke probably knows this, and wouldn't be risking dropping "normal" transactions for false positives. however, what Luke is trying to do now is add an opt-out feature to make your node reject Ordinals.  Bitcoin allows all inscriptions by default, adding a new option to reject Ordinals-like transactions won't fix it, I mean even if the new core version comes with that opt-out enabled by default, people can still disable it, correct me if I am wrong.

Reading into Luke's comments here and there regarding this "ban" he does refer to it as "spam filtration" and he seems to be counting on the fact that most people including miners would activate the change, I find it very hard to believe that mining pools will opt-in for a new upgrade that makes them lose proft.

[HmmMAA]

That gives bad actors the opportunity to build a months/years long sustainable ecosystem to price many users out from using the network. The "protocol" of Ordinals by itself is not the attack, but it could be used as an attack vector. It's going to be an annoying few months until the hype goes down, but it might not be the end of that. It goes, then it comes back.

No one is pushed out of using the network . Anyone has the right to increase the fee to a level that will make his transaction enter into the next block . Isn't that the purpose of the fee market , to make blockchain space as much valuable as possible ? Well , mission accomplished . To be honest , i see current fee market at a low level . As soon as more protocols start to create defi's etc on btc , fees will increase in thousands of dollars for a single tx .
The unfortunate ones will be those that will have to exit from LN for whatever reason and those stacking sats . A new era is coming .

[mikeywith]

As soon as more protocols start to create defi's etc on btc , fees will increase in thousands of dollars for a single tx .
The unfortunate ones will be those that will have to exit from LN for whatever reason and those stacking sats . A new era is coming .

I remember watching a debate with Saifedean Ammous, where the other person said that BTC was too slow and too expensive compared to the legacy payment methods, he did touch on a very important point that BTC transactions are final settlements, they should not be compared with your average credit card or Paypal payments because those are not final, and he makes a lot of sense because if you were to make a wire transfer from the U.S to Tanzania, the final settlement between your bank and the other person's bank and the dozen parties involved could take days if not weeks, and it's no where near cheap.

The same thing actually applies when you pay using your credit card, the shop gets its balance increased right away but for the value to be settled between the banks, the payment provider, and all parties involved it's going to take a lot and cost a lot, especially for cross-border transactions.

So on-chain transactions should be compared with central bank-level settlements since they are the textbook definition of final settlements, so it makes sense that they are expensive and somewhat slow, despite beating the legacy system in that regard, now, I for one would like to see fees increase because more people, companies or even banks are using BTC to settle transactions and not because of some worthless ' it's what I think about Ordinals' data stored on the blockchain.

However, it's only common sense for fees to go up with time, I mean if BTC was used by 1% of the population, nobody would get away with those 2 sat/Vbyte transactions even without Ordinals, I strongly believe the Brc-20 hype will fade and will be just history -- but it will still be a tough war for those  "let's do whatever it takes to keep my fee at 2 sats/ Vbyte" because sometime in the future they would be contesting against each other when Ordis are gone, many people will find something to blame for the high fees, I can't wait for things like "All these stupid folks spamming the blockchain to buy Starbucks coffee that tastes like shit", and ya, I would have to agree with them because Starbucks coffee really does taste like shit.

[philipma1957]

As soon as more protocols start to create defi's etc on btc , fees will increase in thousands of dollars for a single tx .
The unfortunate ones will be those that will have to exit from LN for whatever reason and those stacking sats . A new era is coming .

I remember watching a debate with Saifedean Ammous, where the other person said that BTC was too slow and too expensive compared to the legacy payment methods, he did touch on a very important point that BTC transactions are final settlements, they should not be compared with your average credit card or Paypal payments because those are not final, and he makes a lot of sense because if you were to make a wire transfer from the U.S to Tanzania, the final settlement between your bank and the other person's bank and the dozen parties involved could take days if not weeks, and it's no where near cheap.

The same thing actually applies when you pay using your credit card, the shop gets its balance increased right away but for the value to be settled between the banks, the payment provider, and all parties involved it's going to take a lot and cost a lot, especially for cross-border transactions.

So on-chain transactions should be compared with central bank-level settlements since they are the textbook definition of final settlements, so it makes sense that they are expensive and somewhat slow, despite beating the legacy system in that regard, now, I for one would like to see fees increase because more people, companies or even banks are using BTC to settle transactions and not because of some worthless ' it's what I think about Ordinals' data stored on the blockchain.

However, it's only common sense for fees to go up with time, I mean if BTC was used by 1% of the population, nobody would get away with those 2 sat/Vbyte transactions even without Ordinals, I strongly believe the Brc-20 hype will fade and will be just history -- but it will still be a tough war for those  "let's do whatever it takes to keep my fee at 2 sats/ Vbyte" because sometime in the future they would be contesting against each other when Ordis are gone, many people will find something to blame for the high fees, I can't wait for things like "All these stupid folks spamming the blockchain to buy Starbucks coffee that tastes like shit", and ya, I would have to agree with them because Starbucks coffee really does taste like shit.

I prefer dunkin donuts.