NFTs in the Bitcoin blockchain - Ordinal Theory

[d5000]

BRC-20 transaction patterns could be identified regardless of their size, so a complete "block" is technically possible,

Of course, but BRC-20 folks could simply change the protocol, or change directly to a competing token format, like Casey's proposed "Runes", or even old ones like coloured coins, Omni and Counterparty. As long as the token creator is still around, he can simply swap them for the new format (they're essentially centralized). It would simply lead to an arms race and in the end nothing would have been improved. So I strongly oppose Luke's approach, even if I won't win a popularity contest in this thread with this stance

My opinion is that the only effective strategy against the BRC-20 spam is pointing out, in all communities, that BRC-20 tokens are probably the most useless (and thus, worthless in the long term) assets ever created. These days this may seem different, but I don't give them much life after this bounce. Those who buy at current prices into tokens like ORDI are ... well, at least going for an extreme risk.

(Fun fact: after the success of ORDI, a token called NALS was created and is doing quite well. That shows very well the value proposition of BRC-20 tokens. )

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.

Here I agree.

[1714518049]

1714518049

[1714518049]

1714518049

[1714518049]

1714518049

[garlonicon]

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

True, there are more people thinking in a similar way. For example here: https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/sc-vision/

3. Fee Revenues must rise.

    Fees are stubbornly low.
    As the subsidy wanes, total security budget will leave the network vulnerable to attack.
    Merged Mining is both necessary and sufficient for effective Fee Revenues.

But of course, expensive on-chain transactions doesn't mean, that each transaction should represent a single user. If you have any kind of transaction joining (sidechain-based or not), then there could be thousands of users, behind a single, joined transaction, batched in a trustless way.

[ABCbits]

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 .

Sidechain is barely used while LN still require on-chain TX to open/close channel, so unfortunate ones is more likely to stop using Bitcoin or use Bitcoin only for bigger TX. And IMO things such as DeFi or NFT should be done on Bitcoin sidechain instead.

BRC-20 transaction patterns could be identified regardless of their size, so a complete "block" is technically possible,

Of course, but BRC-20 folks could simply change the protocol, or change directly to a competing token format, like Casey's proposed "Runes", or even old ones like coloured coins, Omni and Counterparty. As long as the token creator is still around, he can simply swap them for the new format (they're essentially centralized). It would simply lead to an arms race and in the end nothing would have been improved. So I strongly oppose Luke's approach, even if I won't win a popularity contest in this thread with this stance

Although even if the author change the format, all BRC-20 software need to perform update on their back-end and wallet software.

[Wind_FURY]

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 .

I didn't say pushed out, I said priced out. I believe there's an obvious difference. It is as the network was designed, to be robust. Plus by keeping the costs of running a full node low, the costs are pushed to the users. I wouldn't say that it isn't annoying for plebs like me though.

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 .

Why don't they build on the "Bitcoin" with big blocks? That would be "more efficient" and more sustainable, no?

[HmmMAA]

I didn't say pushed out, I said priced out. I believe there's an obvious difference. It is as the network was designed, to be robust. Plus by keeping the costs of running a full node low, the costs are pushed to the users. I wouldn't say that it isn't annoying for plebs like me though.

My apologies , i'm not a native english speaker and i thought the context was the same . Had to ask chatgpt :

    Priced Out: This implies that the user is unable to afford or participate due to the high fees, making the transaction network inaccessible.
    Pushed Out: This suggests a force or external factor (in this case, high fees) that is causing the user to be excluded or compelled to leave the network.

I diasgree that the network was designed this way . On the contrary , satoshi said that when demand starts to rise , users should not run nodes and start using spv's . The core's mentality that miners and pools are bad is the one that made people want to give the ability to everyone to run a node with very low specs . A proverb in my country says " you can't paint easter eggs with farts " .
And for the possible argument that there's no high demand for transactions , so no need for increase in blocksize of base layer to keep fees down , look at how many tens of thousands of projects exist because btc can't handle all those transactions or users don't use it due to high fees .

Why don't they build on the "Bitcoin" with big blocks? That would be "more efficient" and more sustainable, no?

Actually they build , much more than just nft's and in extremely higher volume . Maybe you should check it out , things happening in btc now were started years ago in other sha-256 chains .

[Wind_FURY]

I didn't say pushed out, I said priced out. I believe there's an obvious difference. It is as the network was designed, to be robust. Plus by keeping the costs of running a full node low, the costs are pushed to the users. I wouldn't say that it isn't annoying for plebs like me though.

My apologies , i'm not a native english speaker and i thought the context was the same . Had to ask chatgpt :

    Priced Out: This implies that the user is unable to afford or participate due to the high fees, making the transaction network inaccessible.
    Pushed Out: This suggests a force or external factor (in this case, high fees) that is causing the user to be excluded or compelled to leave the network.

I diasgree that the network was designed this way . On the contrary , satoshi said that when demand starts to rise , users should not run nodes and start using spv's . The core's mentality that miners and pools are bad is the one that made people want to give the ability to everyone to run a node with very low specs . A proverb in my country says " you can't paint easter eggs with farts " .

In the context that Satoshi is a developer, not a "god", and Bitcoin is an open source project, not a church - Currently the developers who are in charge have made design-decisions on the network to value decentralization and security first, and transaction throughput second.

And for the possible argument that there's no high demand for transactions , so no need for increase in blocksize of base layer to keep fees down , look at how many tens of thousands of projects exist because btc can't handle all those transactions or users don't use it due to high fees .

OK, then shouldn't the big blockers start marketing their forked chains for Ordinals users? Shouldn't they demo their networks that it could handle all the demand for blocks? Why keep criticizing the Bitcoin Core Developers and making it a philosophical debate?

BCash and BCash SV chains are better, OK, all Ordinals users should use them.

Why don't they build on the "Bitcoin" with big blocks? That would be "more efficient" and more sustainable, no?

Actually they build , much more than just nft's and in extremely higher volume . Maybe you should check it out , things happening in btc now were started years ago in other sha-256 chains .

OK, good luck. I hope they build it better than Ethereum.

[HmmMAA]

In the context that Satoshi is a developer, not a "god", and Bitcoin is an open source project, not a church - Currently the developers who are in charge have made design-decisions on the network to value decentralization and security first, and transaction throughput second.

Satoshi was not just a developer , he was an architect . He pointed the way things should work . Don't compare core with him . It's like a civil engineer providing designs of how a building should be made , and each brick layer do whatever he thinks is better because after all civil engineers don't build bricks .
If you disagree on that kindly provide me info of what groundbreaking projects as bitcoin has each member of core made so far .

OK, then shouldn't the big blockers start marketing their forked chains for Ordinals users? Shouldn't they demo their networks that it could handle all the demand for blocks? Why keep criticizing the Bitcoin Core Developers and making it a philosophical debate?

BCash and BCash SV chains are better, OK, all Ordinals users should use them.

They do , its just that most people in crypto have followed what vitalik , cz etc said and consider other chains than btc as scam . Funny though that cz , richard heart and even vitalik are now officialy the scammers .
Take as an example your self . Have you ever tried if bch , bsv or xec works ? Or do you consider anathema to even transact in those chains ?

OK, good luck. I hope they build it better than Ethereum.

Thank you , you too . They already have . Ethereum can currently run as a sidechain on bsv and i think xec . In fact all chains can due to it's TC ability .
May the best chain win , competition is the best thing in this world .

[d5000]

I've looked a bit closer into Luke's Bitcoin Knots changes.

The probably most relevant change this pull request which changes the -datacarriersize policy. If a node limits the maximum amount of data (like it's the case by default), it puts the "Ordinal-style" transactions which "obfuscate" data behind OP_FALSE and OP_IF on the same terms than OP_RETURN transactions. If I interpret right this would limit these "arbitrary data" items to 80 bytes, just like OP_RETURN data items, for the transaction to be relayed by default.

In general, this is a policy I could approve because it's "technologically neutral", much in contrast to earlier attempts to "patch" Bitcoin to "solve" the problem which "filtered" only Ordinals-type inscriptions by hard-coding them into the client.

However, it wouldn't help much against the BRC-20 issue. It seems in these the size of the "content", which is probably identic with "arbitrary data" (although I'm not sure if the MIME type and other metadata has to be added, but that are also only a few bytes), is only between 50 and 60 bytes*, see this BRC-20 transaction for an example. It would help against big NFTs but these aren't the reason for the current congestion. However, even in this case, they could switch to the method used in Doginals for the bigger NFTs.

I also think that Peter Todd is right in the comments that this could lead to smaller miners' competitiveness getting reduced, although one could say the same thing if the problem was with big OP_RETURN data items.

There are two more changes relevant for Ordinals/Inscriptions:

An additional -datacarriercost option has also been added to avoid giving the "segwit
discount" to aribitrary data (and can be increased to require datacarrier transactions
to pay higher fees).

As far as I understand this only would be used by miners.

The question here is: would miners use it or not? Would miners that use it have disadvantages regarding those not using it? Would they lose money replacing Ordinals-style transactions with "normal" transactions which pay less fees? I guess the answer is yes and thus not much miners would use this - if not, I'd be grateful for an explanation

The spam filters limiting smart contract code sizes for pre-Segwit and Segwit
"v0" scripts have been expanded to also cover Taproot. Since the sizes were
inconsistent, the lower size of 1650 which actually had a rationale has been
used as the default for this release. The size limit can be adjusted with the
new -maxscriptsize option. If you know of any legitimate scripts that are
larger than the default, please report a bug.

I think here the same thing applies to the -datacarriersize change. It's not something I would oppose but it wouldn't help to fight the BRC-20 spam as the sizes of these are much smaller.


*This doesn't mean that BRC-20 isn't terribly inefficient. A protobuf-based format could store the same values in less than 20 bytes, I guess. And the problem with the "2 transactions per transfer", which results in >110 bytes of overhead, remains.

[Wind_FURY]

In the context that Satoshi is a developer, not a "god", and Bitcoin is an open source project, not a church - Currently the developers who are in charge have made design-decisions on the network to value decentralization and security first, and transaction throughput second.

Satoshi was not just a developer , he was an architect . He pointed the way things should work . Don't compare core with him . It's like a civil engineer providing designs of how a building should be made , and each brick layer do whatever he thinks is better because after all civil engineers don't build bricks .

If you disagree on that kindly provide me info of what groundbreaking projects as bitcoin has each member of core made so far .

He did, but he's now gone, and just because "one path" as you interpreted was how Satoshi wanted the way things to work, doesn't mean it's what's best for the longevity and the sustainability of the network. As I posted, he's not a "god" and with all due respect, he can also be wrong.

OK, then shouldn't the big blockers start marketing their forked chains for Ordinals users? Shouldn't they demo their networks that it could handle all the demand for blocks? Why keep criticizing the Bitcoin Core Developers and making it a philosophical debate?

BCash and BCash SV chains are better, OK, all Ordinals users should use them.

They do , its just that most people in crypto have followed what vitalik , cz etc said and consider other chains than btc as scam . Funny though that cz , richard heart and even vitalik are now officialy the scammers .

Take as an example your self . Have you ever tried if bch , bsv or xec works ? Or do you consider anathema to even transact in those chains ?

No, I'm OK with Bitcoin. It's enough for a pleb like me. It's widely accepted everywhere in crypto and it's easy to buy them if I need to because it's available in literally all exchanges. Plus I avoid forked altcoins that claim they're the "real Bitcoin", or people who claim to be Satoshi.

OK, good luck. I hope they build it better than Ethereum.

Thank you , you too . They already have . Ethereum can currently run as a sidechain on bsv and i think xec . In fact all chains can due to it's TC ability .

May the best chain win , competition is the best thing in this world .

I was taking you seriously until you said that.

[Medusah]

Have you ever tried if bch , bsv or xec works ?

I once tried syncing with the BSV network.  I stopped the moment I realized I would run out of space before it reaches the chain tip.  I have had more than a terabyte of free space.  Yeah, I consider it an anathema.  

(I am not endorsing BSV in any way, I was just testing their software.  Later, even block explorers stopped supporting it, so I guess it really is too much of a trouble)

The question here is: would miners use it or not?

Miners would only be discouraged to mine transactions which pay more if they are non-standard.  But now it is too late.  Ordinals are standard.  And now they are discouraged from installing softrware which re-treats them as non-standard, because they know they will lose a ton of money.

[cryptosize]

Here's what I consider an anathema:

https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2021/08/04/bsv-suffers-51-attack-report/
https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2019/05/24/bitcoin-cash-miners-undo-attackers-transactions-with-51-attack/

[cmpeq]

Clearly posting video files in TapScript is not intended behavior, but tokens are not going away.

I think the solution is clear: OP_BN128_ADD, OP_BN128_MUL, OP_BN128_CHECKPAIRING
If there was an easy, efficient way to verify zero knowlege proofs on BTC, the ordinals can migrate to zk-powered layer 2s which still have the full effective security of Bitcoin (instead of transactions being directly verified on bitcoin, the transactions are proved, and then the proof is verified on Bitcoin, so by induction...).

There are efficient, secure SNARKs with constant size proofs of ~100bytes meaning that verifying 100,000 BRC-20 token transactions could be bundled into a single transaction on BTC which has the footprint of a single multisig uxto.


In the meantime, a shameless plug-- L2Ordinals is trying to get projects to adopt using zkp ordinals to decrease the footprint of ordinal based tokens on Bitcoin (bring the footprint down from lots of txs to a few ZKP txs of a hundred bytes each).

Supporting succinct zero knowlege proofs in the long term is the only way I see this ending without alienating a large group of the community/increased drama.

[HmmMAA]

He did, but he's now gone, and just because "one path" as you interpreted was how Satoshi wanted the way things to work, doesn't mean it's what's best for the longevity and the sustainability of the network. As I posted, he's not a "god" and with all due respect, he can also be wrong.

Well , segwit and LN was the path according to core , do you consider it the right path if satoshi was wrong ? How many more years for the btc community to understand that both models were failed ?
LN devs admit that LN has many problems and can't work . Segwit din't provide any meaningful solution ( see mempool and fees ) .
If core goes to a hardfork and increase blocksize would you consider them the authority you should follow or you should reconsider if following core was a bad choice ? Because the way i see it a hardfork is imminent .   

I once tried syncing with the BSV network.  I stopped the moment I realized I would run out of space before it reaches the chain tip.  I have had more than a terabyte of free space.  Yeah, I consider it an anathema. 

(I am not endorsing BSV in any way, I was just testing their software.  Later, even block explorers stopped supporting it, so I guess it really is too much of a trouble)

Things are not the same as with btc . To run a node you have to invest , so , that node has to have something to offer and provide a return for that service . Or run a node as an expensive hobby . Of course it's a hustle compared to running a node on a rapspi .
Block explorers will be compensated in the future . With fees of a thousandth of a cent per tx , it will be nothing for a user that wants to check his tx to pay 0.01 $ per check .
The difference in projects is that there will be created a new economy not just by speculating on price but on building apps and services . Will it work ? Time will tell .
But for sure ( to me ) that's what electronic cash is .
And a suggestion , try it as a user ( SPV ) and let me know if it doesn't work .
 

[garlonicon]

Well , segwit and LN was the path according to core , do you consider it the right path if satoshi was wrong ?

Why do you think only one side can be right? I think payment channels could exist even if you have big blocks. The only controversial part is "routing". But if you have two unidirectional channels, without routing, then it is impossible to publish the old channel state, because it would give the attacker less money than it could have, just by following the rules.

How many more years for the btc community to understand that both models were failed ?

Well, just ask users, why they still open new channels, and why they still use Segwit addresses (and even Taproot). Now, it cannot be banned, it can be only discouraged, but then, you need a working alternative. You cannot beat something with nothing. If you convince users to switch back into legacy addresses, then you would also need to convince them to pay more fees, and to use only 1 MB, or convince them to use some altcoin. Because if you want a hard-fork, then you need a lot of support from the network, something like 90% or 95%, maybe even 99%. Even P2SH was a soft-fork.

If core goes to a hardfork and increase blocksize would you consider them the authority you should follow or you should reconsider if following core was a bad choice ? Because the way i see it a hardfork is imminent .

Why do you think they would ever create any hard-fork, if they would not be forced to do so? Block size increase can be done by just another soft-fork. And as long as blocks don't have 4 MB, counted in raw bytes, they have no reason to do so. Extreme soft-fork example: https://petertodd.org/2016/forced-soft-forks

Will it work ? Time will tell .

I think batching is better. Having million users behind a single on-chain transaction, paying 0.01 BTC, is cheaper to process in the long term, than million separate transactions, with a single satoshi fee, from million separate users. After all, you don't need those transactions later (and if you need, then their existence can be proved by commitments). After many years, it doesn't matter, if there was a single transaction paying 0.01 BTC, or a million transactions, paying a single satoshi each. And what is easier to download and verify, if you start a new node, and if those transactions are set in stone?

And a suggestion , try it as a user ( SPV ) and let me know if it doesn't work .

If you think SPV is so good, then why the whole network is not SPV-based, and why blocks are not simply dropped, after they have enough confirmations?

Edit: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

7. Reclaiming Disk Space

Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under enough blocks, the spent transactions before it can be discarded to save disk space. To facilitate this without breaking the block's hash, transactions are hashed in a Merkle Tree [7][2][5], with only the root included in the block's hash. Old blocks can then be compacted by stubbing off branches of the tree. The interior hashes do not need to be stored.

Where is it implemented? If you think SPV is so good, then it should be implemented in each full node, and only unspent transaction outputs should be stored on consensus level. For everything else, only the proof of being spent should be kept. Right?

[Wind_FURY]

He did, but he's now gone, and just because "one path" as you interpreted was how Satoshi wanted the way things to work, doesn't mean it's what's best for the longevity and the sustainability of the network. As I posted, he's not a "god" and with all due respect, he can also be wrong.

Well , segwit and LN was the path according to core , do you consider it the right path if satoshi was wrong ? How many more years for the btc community to understand that both models were failed ?

LN devs admit that LN has many problems and can't work . Segwit din't provide any meaningful solution ( see mempool and fees ) .

If core goes to a hardfork and increase blocksize would you consider them the authority you should follow or you should reconsider if following core was a bad choice ? Because the way i see it a hardfork is imminent .   
 

If the path taken is to maintain decentralization, network security/not risk it more attack vectors, and have Bitcoin to continue be robust, then yes, smaller blocks are better. Because if you're merely talking about increasing transaction-throughput but sacrificing decentralization, then that's not real scaling. Real scaling means increasing transaction-throughput without sacrificing decentralization.

Plus I believe I'm not the only person who thinks it's the right path. Check the network transaction volume, number of holders, and the market value. Plus all of those forked blockchains claiming to be the "Real Bitcoin" are treated like the Flat-Earthers of the community.

[serveria.com]

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 .

Really? Tell that to a person willing to buy $10 worth of BTC. According to you, he now has to pay like what? $50 in fees?   No, we're not pushing anyone out, never.    And to "make blockchain space as much valuable as possible" is the ultimate goal for miners not for all bitcoiners or market in general...

[philipma1957]

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 .

Really? Tell that to a person willing to buy $10 worth of BTC. According to you, he now has to pay like what? $50 in fees?   No, we're not pushing anyone out, never.    And to "make blockchain space as much valuable as possible" is the ultimate goal for miners not for all bitcoiners or market in general...

depends if he buys at an exchange.  coinbase won't charge high fee to buy it.

they will charge a high fee to move it off the exchange.

[Wind_FURY]

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 .

Really? Tell that to a person willing to buy $10 worth of BTC. According to you, he now has to pay like what? $50 in fees?   No, we're not pushing anyone out, never.    And to "make blockchain space as much valuable as possible" is the ultimate goal for miners not for all bitcoiners or market in general...

depends if he buys at an exchange.  coinbase won't charge high fee to buy it.

they will charge a high fee to move it off the exchange.

But technically in an exchange it's not actual Bitcoin that you're buying, but mere numbers in their ledger. It only become actual Bitcoin if those units are transferred in a public address with a private key that's under your custody.

In the subject of Ordinals and transaction fees, have we seen the network maintain such high fees that users are willing to pay more than one month? I believe not, but if it does, wouldn't it make Bitcoin more profitable to mine that BCH and BSV miners would start pointing hashing power to Bitcoin?

[cryptosize]

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 .

Really? Tell that to a person willing to buy $10 worth of BTC. According to you, he now has to pay like what? $50 in fees?   No, we're not pushing anyone out, never.    And to "make blockchain space as much valuable as possible" is the ultimate goal for miners not for all bitcoiners or market in general...

depends if he buys at an exchange.  coinbase won't charge high fee to buy it.

they will charge a high fee to move it off the exchange.

But technically in an exchange it's not actual Bitcoin that you're buying, but mere numbers in their ledger. It only become actual Bitcoin if those units are transferred in a public address with a private key that's under your custody.

In the subject of Ordinals and transaction fees, have we seen the network maintain such high fees that users are willing to pay more than one month? I believe not, but if it does, wouldn't it make Bitcoin more profitable to mine that BCH and BSV miners would start pointing hashing power to Bitcoin?

I guess it's not possible to do merged mining (BTC + BCH + BSV) with SHA-256 ASICs? (like Scrypt ASICs can do merged mining -> LTC + DOGE)

[digaran]

I guess it's not possible to do merged mining (BTC + BCH + BSV) with SHA-256 ASICs? (like Scrypt ASICs can do merged mining -> LTC + DOGE)

I think you got it backwards, it should be written this way >>> sh*t + garbage + Gold, then the question arises, why would anyone trying to mine Gold (BTC), should go through sh*t and garbage? Even in actual gold mines there are no such garbage and human wastes involved.😉
Even though I disagree with censorship, but I loved it to see how garbage fans were panicking over Luke's new version that censors garbage, but still if people want to take a dump on Bitcoin's blockchain, they should pay a very high fee and we shouldn't just disallow them like that, after all, this is a decentralized economy, restrictions will only open the door for more restrictions.

Ps, sorry for the language, I couldn't find any better examples. (synonyms). 😂