Why running NFTs on Bitcoin blockchain is a dumb idea.

[headingnorth]

Will Ordinals and NFTs Destroy Bitcoin?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJr8yUf3dYk


Energy usage of bitcoin is high enough as it is and should be reserved for more worthwhile applications. Transferring around monkey jpegs and/or porn images on the network is a pointless waste of energy. The congestion and bloat this would create will lead to higher fees for users, clog and slow the network with useless traffic that can potentially compromise security with overcomplexity and bloat. Bitcoin should remain true to its core mission and principles-- the most sound money ever created and greatest store of value.

Once you try to be too many things and try to please everyone, you just become another stupid altcoin.
Leave the idiots to play around with their ethereum and solana, monkey pics, etc.

[1714862501]

1714862501

[1714862501]

1714862501

[1714862501]

1714862501

[1714862501]

1714862501

[pooya87]

Every now and then some people come along that have drank the shitcoin koolaid and think the same garbage should be implemented inside Bitcoin protocol too. I see it as a good thing since they sometimes find attack vectors like the recent thing with this "Ordinals" nonsense that has showed us an attack vector that exists in Taproot scripts where the user can easily inject garbage into the blockchain (as opposed to it being very hard in the past).
That's not even to mention how useless the NFT idea is as a whole.

Full node developers should get to work and non-standard that to prevent such spams from growing on the chain.

[odolvlobo]

...Energy usage of bitcoin is high enough as it is and should be reserved for more worthwhile applications....

The energy consumption of Bitcoin is unrelated to how it is used, except that more adoption means higher fees, which result in more energy consumption.

[headingnorth]

...Energy usage of bitcoin is high enough as it is and should be reserved for more worthwhile applications....

The energy consumption of Bitcoin is unrelated to how it is used, except that more adoption means higher fees, which result in more energy consumption.

To me the energy consumption is a non-issue. Anything we use in our daily modern life that is worthwhile requires as much or more energy than bitcoin. Washing machines and dryers, automobiles, public transportation, heating and cooling our homes, using our bank ATM machines, microwave ovens, are things that require more energy per capita than bitcoin. Having said that, the technology is always improving and becoming more energy efficient. Over half the energy used by bitcoin is now renewable and/or stranded energy that otherwise could not be used. The energy it uses it what makes bitcoin so incredibly secure. Which is why it will never become proof of stake which is not very secure.

Some American politicians love to criticize bitcoin for this kind of thing while flying around in their private jets, driving in their big SUVs, using energy to heat their 5,000 square foot McMansions. If these people would first give up all their modern luxuries and go live in a cave then maybe they won't sound so dumb.

[ABCbits]

Energy usage of bitcoin is high enough as it is and should be reserved for more worthwhile applications.

The actual problem is limited block size capacity, not energy usage to mine Bitcoin. Theoretical transaction/second isn't affected by total hashrate/energy to mine Bitcoin.

Full node developers should get to work and non-standard that to prevent such spams from growing on the chain.

But what can be done to prevent this kind of spam? Adding more hard limit (such as maximum tx size or maximum redeemspend script size) require hard fork and it can be mitigated by creating multiple transaction.

[Ucy]

The problem is with people or things who don't consider the fact that everyone/most participants should be able to run full Blockchain nodes, which help keep the network more decentralized and secure. Another very important reason everyone should be able to run a full node is so that it becomes possible to replicate the nodes within ones physical community, then continue to exist and do transactions with the community without the rest of the main Global Networks. This could be necessary when a part of the World/Network cuts off from the rest of the Global Networks during internet shutdown, disaster. etc
This is why I believe things will work out well on Sidechain/Multichain Networks  designed for different economic groups with different hardware capabilities/capacities. They should be able to customize the Blockchain to suit their capacities and their needs. Anyone can decide to run multiple Blockchains (multiple fullnodes) if he/she wants to, or run a single Fullnode of small/medium/big/unlimited Blockchain size. This could be inform of big/medium/small Blockspace or Blockchain that is customized to hold certain amount of information/data before it's automatically locked so that nothing enters anymore. You could customize it to lock at 50gb, 100gb etc..
A Blockchain can be designed to hold whatever amount or type of data one wishes so long as they are not limiting most/all participants from running their Fullnode for the Network. People could even design their Blockchain within the Multichain system to reject evil/harmful data that breaks their good rules. You can only be censorship resistant if your data is not a danger to the networks/participants/societies. If people reject your harmful data you have the option to destroy the data or host it alone or with your group and you will now be distinct group and easy targets for law enforcement agencies.
It's important that Blockchain be used for holding certain size of data most times as it may not be efficient to do otherwise. It's more suitable for light data/information. Other decentralized  non-blockchain applications/systems could be used for this purpose and they can be part of the Bitcoin Network as long as they meet the required safety standards/principles.

[franky1]

NFT as the silly identifier of monkey/cat memes is a waste of time. waste of resource

and sure let that waste its time and resource on ethereums subnetwork bridges

however the initial utility of NFT was not monkey/cat memes

NFT that represent a key identity to property has utility.. just not meme property.
keys that are used as gateways for server access/ownership claims and account management. reputations and business.. you know things like IP rights, brand copyright, patent claims,
time stamping your business brand registration and then using that NFT to peg out and create more shareable units to be the businesses official company shares. that was the initial premiss of some of the benefits of NFT

selling ownership shares in a brands identity, a companies stock, collateral in a immutable timestamped way that holds up in court should there be dispute of ownership

that is where NFT can explore and have usefulness. and thats the ones that should be utilised on a bitcoin subnetwork bridge

[BlackBoss_]

Altcoins are perfect tools for scammers. Their developers simply create blockchains with smaller block time, faster transaction speed, bigger block size and convince investors that their altcoins are better than Bitcoin.

But they failed because their blockchains and networks have lower hashrates than Bitcoin. Centralization is worse than decentralization. Faster does not mean better if their blockchains can be reverted, attacked, halted anytime by big holders or core teams.

Do we really need faster blockchains but have to accept higher risk of coin seize, hacks and other risks.

With same algorithm, Proof of Work, altcoin networks can not compare to Bitcoin network.
https://howmanyconfs.com/

Other algorithms like Proof of Stake ... are worse than Proof of Work.

[Lucius]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5437464.0

There is already a discussion on the same topic.

[NotATether]

Will Ordinals and NFTs Destroy Bitcoin?

No, because nobody will buy them on the Bitcoin blockchain.

And since there are no buyers, the number of people looking for a quick buck dramatically goes down, like say to 1/100th.

Which effectively means, the ecosystem will stay small forever unless someone causes a seismic shift in terms of adoption of Bitcoin NFTs. Which by the way I am not holding my breath on.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5437464.0

There is already a discussion on the same topic.

I'd argue that most people reading this thread won't understand that one. There's a reason it's in Dev&Tech.

[franky1]

going around in circles again

first it was coloured coins,, resulting in(circa 2013-15) dev conflict and moderation causing people to create ethereum and develop subnetworks for colour coins over there(now branded erc tokens and then NFT)

now its re-spinning again. .. ordinals.. poking at the same debates again. where its obviously not going end the debate with the result being to be a onchain(mainnet) accepted proposal

the best play is not bloat bitcoin blockchain with metadata per tx for every business, IP registry on the planet.
but to have a subnetwork thats actually a subnetwork of bitcoin but for only bitcoin.
thus making bitcoin the go to first network to be able to access the subnetwork (no side-bridging)

thus becomes a sub feature for only bitcoin.
(unlike a certain subnetwork that phishes its a bitcoin subnet but is actually a crossborder bridge subnet)
so not those silly subnetwork bridges of cross borders existing today, but a new one.. not one that just pretend to be bitcoin subnetworks and abuse bitcoin co-branding while offering nothing to benefit bitcoin solely/usefully/securely

where by bitcoin if having a true sub feature subnetwork offers a NFT proposition, where its not for meme crap.. but for actual business registration and IP right. which as a sub of the sub then can be used as company shares, stocks, bonds, land(physical and server virtual land(web3)) shares/allocations

thus having an actual purpose and real tradable utility and ownership rights of property law without bloating bitcoins mainnet

but these subnetworks better be designed with better security, accounting and policy, rather than the crappy subnetworks currently being made with wishful over promised propositions that have for 7 years not met any expectations and people know they couldnt, yet left people waiting years and even now still told to wait for them to (facepalm) flourish

bitcoins network doesnt need to "be-all" but it needs to scale onchain to not be expensive to transact nor be congested as soon as one business needs to sweep deposits. and no i dont mean throw everyone off the mainnet like other fools suggest. or suggest "just pay more or wait a week"
bitcoins onchain scaling need to finally get into action again. and also have subnetworks(with real integrity and validation and security) as a sub mission. not the main mission of bitcoin devs

so subnetworks do have a niche and utility. they just have to be good and actually solve something and actually do as promised.
rather than just brand steal "bitcoin" but offer nothing apart from stalling bitcoin growth

[BlackHatCoiner]

Transferring around monkey jpegs and/or porn images on the network is a pointless waste of energy.

You don't get to decide what's a waste for somebody else's money. If someone acknowledges value in JPEG, there should be nothing stopping him from spend their satoshi that way. There is a non-zero cost at making those transactions, and the cost is only paid by the sender, again. Not to mention, that it is pointless to measure in energy spent per byte.

Full node developers should get to work and non-standard that to prevent such spams from growing on the chain.

Or we just leave it as is, as it isn't harmful for non-NFT users?

[buwaytress]

I hate to say this but agree: say no to nonsense monkeys and fish and cats. I like memes as much as the next person, but no need to bloat the blockchain.

But those aren't just what NFTs (man I hate the word, it's not like we say fungible coins anyway) could do.

I like some ideas I've come across, that would require (evolving) non-fungibility, and linking that to block time instead of regular time as a stable way to lapse time.

Probably atop Bitcoin, sure. Where Rootstock et al?

[Crypt0Gore]

I don't have anything against NFTs because I don't even buy them, good for those that sees or develop interest in NFTs but bring this to Bitcoin will just ruin the permissionless open-source project, I like meme coins and I have a few bags of them, it will suck seeing such on Bitcoin blockchain, I believe such trashes are better off on other blockchain projects like Ethereum and Polygon. I can never imagine a day that I will invest my hard earned money on any Jpeg of a cartoonish character, it will never happen.

[franky1]

originating from colored coin concepts we seen NFT go viral
but seeing as NFT is now just a buzzword associated with over priced no function meme jokes on a ethereum tokened subnetwork

i guess the similar (original colored coin) concept of things like "ordinals" which would/should avoid being identifiers of meme junk could "if" made on a new good subnetwork of bitcoin and have good coding policy could have real utility of registering property, thus providing a secure system of new utility

[headingnorth]

Transferring around monkey jpegs and/or porn images on the network is a pointless waste of energy.

You don't get to decide what's a waste for somebody else's money. If someone acknowledges value in JPEG, there should be nothing stopping him from spend their satoshi that way. There is a non-zero cost at making those transactions, and the cost is only paid by the sender, again. Not to mention, that it is pointless to measure in energy spent per byte.

Full node developers should get to work and non-standard that to prevent such spams from growing on the chain.

Or we just leave it as is, as it isn't harmful for non-NFT users?

If you want to spend your money on NFTs then there are other blockchains that are much better suited for that. Clogging up the bitcoin network with pointless traffic and congestion has adverse effects on everyone else using it, in the form of longer waiting periods and higher fees. The cost isn't just paid by the sender. That is not the purpose of bitcoin.

Just because someone values something (whether it be monkey jpegs and videos, cat memes, animal porn, gay porn, child porn etc.) does not mean they should be allowed to do whatever they want with it. There are limits to free speech and the miners have the right to refuse to accommodate such nonsense.

Bitcoin Ordinals creator looks for fix after first instance of shock porn

Feb 2, 2022

Only days after the launch of the Bitcoin-based Ordinals protocol, its creator had to deal with their first shock pornographic image,
which has been inscribed into the blockchain.  On Feb. 2 at around 12:15 am UTC, an unsavory image known as “goatse” was inscribed onto the Bitcoin blockchain via the Ordinals protocol.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-ordinals-creators-look-for-fix-after-first-instance-of-shock-porn
 

[The Cryptovator]

Actually, I absolutely despise NFT things and am not ready to utilize them for fucking. To convert an image to NFT is ridiculous. NFT on the Bitcoin Blockchain is absolutely disgusting. It resembles an attempt to kill Bitcoin. But I'm curious about who will use it in due to high transaction fees. Many Chain are available to deploy NFT, such as polygons. However, I continue to be curious about how NFT projects raise money from investors.

[BlackHatCoiner]

If you want to spend your money on NFTs then there are other blockchains that are much better suited for that.

But no blockchain other than Bitcoin's is immune and censorship resistant. I can see the reason why someone selects this network for this job.

Clogging up the bitcoin network with pointless traffic and congestion has adverse effects on everyone else using it

Pointless? According to who? You and me? Obviously, it isn't pointless by whoever broadcasts such transactions. Secondly, the network allows for message transfer, even if highly discouraged. That's a protocol rule, not an opinion. If someone wants to store an essay, he doesn't violate anything. Thirdly, every transaction can be considered congestion, but it doesn't make sense to follow that route, does it?

[headingnorth]

If you want to spend your money on NFTs then there are other blockchains that are much better suited for that.

But no blockchain other than Bitcoin's is immune and censorship resistant. I can see the reason why someone selects this network for this job.

Clogging up the bitcoin network with pointless traffic and congestion has adverse effects on everyone else using it

Pointless? According to who? You and me? Obviously, it isn't pointless by whoever broadcasts such transactions. Secondly, the network allows for message transfer, even if highly discouraged. That's a protocol rule, not an opinion. If someone wants to store an essay, he doesn't violate anything. Thirdly, every transaction can be considered congestion, but it doesn't make sense to follow that route, does it?

Your argument makes as much sense as saying a bank is practicing censorship when it refuses to be a marketplace for NFTs and pornography.

That is not the purpose of a bank, nor was it ever the purpose of bitcoin. Bitcoin is for moving around money, not images of porn and monkey jpegs.

[tortic25]

nfts are a bad ideal anyway, 99% of them have no real (use) besides a promise to get rich