On Ordinals: Where do you stand?

[franky1]

bitcoin is not permissionless

a. firstly the consensus network is was consentual
b. secondly the public-private key signing

heres the thing
where the song sheet windy and pooya are singing get the words mixed up on

b. value ownership is where the network majority cannot move value without the individual key owners consent

a. the individual cannot couldnt(past) use new features without the network mass consent

and never should the two swap.. to become permissionless

though doomad wants the two to swap and be permissionless. and he has already got one of his idol wishes.. (a) softened
now he wants (b) broken... having people run fool nodes not checking transactions meet rules and wanting new opcodes that dont sign whole transaction lengths but only parts of data so he or others can manipulate data in a tx onroute (he loves the idea of anyonecanspend and anyonecanpay ideas)

[1714482311]

1714482311

[1714482311]

1714482311

[1714482311]

1714482311

[1714482311]

1714482311

[1714482311]

1714482311

[Saint-loup]

We can't determine, nor debate, what can and what can't have value, or what actually has value, except for the market to accept "it" for the fair asking price. We also can't demand for those NFT transactions to be censored, because it would be a failure to Bitcoin's Ethos if it actually happens. I believe we just have to merely accept it, BUT we shall agree that the development of NFT in the Bitcoin blockchain is not pushing the boundaries of Science anymore. It's actually in the world of stupid. Censorship-resistant dick pics and fart sounds are stupid.

The ethos of Bitcoin is not anymore to be a usable decentralized mean of payment? If we can no longer send on-chain transactions with affordable mining fees for a random Earth inhabitant because of a new feature, I don't think this feature respect the ethos of Bitcoin. If only big mining farms can mine Bitcoin because of the size of the blockchain, I don't think that fits the ethos of Bitcoin. I may be wrong but I don't think Bitcoin has been initially designed to only being used by few rich westerners and mined by industrial factories. Bitcoin is already one of the most expensive cryptocurrency, we don't need to increase its cost of use.

[franky1]

the idea of silly people thinking:
- bitcoin should have less transactions
- people paying more
- single user paying super big fee's
is the oppositive of bitcoins ethos

its a international currency for the masses

its not meant for bloat data for elitists unrelated to payment data

by allowing more
-lean transactions
    -actual byte counting
    -set for purpose
    -set for performance
-fee controls that punish the spammers more so than everyone

means each person pay less, but the amount combined is enough bonus to incentivise mining pools for when block rewards deplete

[Artemis3]

I agree, this is not a discussion about the content of the spam, or if you like it or has value or not. It is spam, not bitcoin transactions.

Anyway 3 days and counting...

[OgNasty]

I look forward to watching development and infrastructure grow for Ordinals.  It would be great if this was the way to finally have some of the functionality from other chains.  For example, what if Ordinals were used as a way to decentralize organizations like NastyFans?  What if you could easily issue payments to be split amongst all the holders of a collection of Ordinals?  This could be something I've wanted from Bitcoin for more than a decade.  It would basically eliminate the need for a 3rd party to run an exchange or sit on funds to be distributed.  I personally hope development in this area doesn't stop, as high Bitcoin blockchain fees could be an issue for distributions.  Hopefully with some more development we can see how to implement things like smart contracts that could be drained by collection owners with the end user paying the fees to withdraw any funds held on their behalf.  For me, this would be a game changer. 

[larry_vw_1955]

I'm not sure what the motivation was for Casey Rodarmor to put his system together -- experimentation is often fueled by simply wanting to test the bounds of what can be done -- but the people creating NFTs with it are certainly doing it out of financial motivation, for the most part.

disagree. look at some of the crap people are storing there. there's no money motivation for i'd say 99% of them so far. as far as Mr. Rodarmor, i'm not even sure he even cares or considered the impact of his "invention" on the blockchain.

I think we're witnessing a rush for people to get their stuff inscribed now in case changes are made to the protocol to prevent such "abuse" from happening in the future.

well i mean if that happens then ordinals would be a dead project and their images would too. so it would kind of be like they wasted their money.

The potential applications for this beyond art are limitless, however. A lot of potential utility here.

like what? being the largest warehouse of junk gifs in the universe? i'll give it that  should be hitting 100,000 junk nfts soon. at some point 1 million and at some point bitcoin will be the largest warehouse of junk gifs in existence.  

[n0nce]

I'd honestly like to know what their objection is against NFTs on Lightning or any other maybe really fun experiments they may come up with. It is objectively the better platform for something like that.

think of it like spray painting grafitti onto some walls on an underground tunnel just because it's there that's why you do it and because maybe it's not really meant to be done that's an added bonus. there doesn't have to be any financial motive.

I'm not sure what the motivation was for Casey Rodarmor to put his system together -- experimentation is often fueled by simply wanting to test the bounds of what can be done -- but the people creating NFTs with it are certainly doing it out of financial motivation, for the most part.

I'm all about experimentation and pushing boundaries, but why deploy on mainnet if you care about Bitcoin at all?

141GB extra storage per year for random pictures isn't as bad as I expected, but I'm also worried about people storing illegal and highly immoral material in the blockchain, which was the main reason for myself not pursuing the idea of spinning up a BSV node, for instance..

Likewise, it could be the reason for people to shut down their Bitcoin nodes. I'm being honest: I will not store such materials on any system under my control. If it ends up in the Bitcoin blockchain, I will stop storing the blockchain, i.e. shutting down my nodes. Sad but harsh truth.

The potential applications for this beyond art are limitless, however. A lot of potential utility here. Art NFTs just happen to be the gateway to onboarding normies to crypto.

We should seriously consider whether we agree with committing to storing any (yes, any...) data on our own machines (that we're liable for), without possibility to delete or deny storing that information unless we stop running the software. If this was a separate program from Bitcoin core with a separate database, it would be one thing. But attempting such an experiment on the blockchain is the most questionable choice in the room here, in my opinion.
If you want to host a 'maximally free decentralized, redundant data storage' program, go ahead. Worst-case, you just shut it down. But we are talking about putting the one real Bitcoin we have, at risk, for that, because we are mixing concerns.

Bitcoin was not invented to become some sort of cloud storage where people upload their files. The debate about NFTs and other tokens on bitcoin blockchain is also not about their usefulness, their value or anything like that. It is all about using a system in a way that it is not supposed to be used.

We also can't demand for those NFT transactions to be censored, because it would be a failure to Bitcoin's Ethos if it actually happens.

Bitcoin is meant to be a currency people use for payment, using it for anything else is actually against its "Ethos". Also:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5437787.msg61733370#msg61733370

Right on, mate!

The ethos of Bitcoin

Yup, more people should at the very least read the headline of the Bitcoin whitepaper.
Hint, for anyone who didn't get the memo. It is a payment system, mostly for online payments.

Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System

It says nothing about emulating cloud storage, right?

I'd honestly like to know what their objection is against NFTs on Lightning or any other maybe really fun experiments they may come up with. It is objectively the better platform for something like that.

I'd guess lack of promotion (even on Bitcoin community) and lack of support on existing Bitcoin/LN wallet. People is less likely to download new wallet just to try sidechain/off-chain. And those NFT user who use Ordinal probably just hop-on Bitcoin popularity and current Ordinal hype.

As for promotion: RGB is not promoted a lot, from what I can tell, but Lightning Labs (as always) are pretty vocal about their work (in this case, Taro). Regarding wallets; I highly doubt that most people's daily on-chain Bitcoin wallet supports Ordinals and NFTs. So they will have to download something new, anyway.

~

Can't you do that with Taro or RGB, without risking destabilizing Bitcoin L1?

[Hispo]

I agree, this is not a discussion about the content of the spam, or if you like it or has value or not. It is spam, not bitcoin transactions.

Anyway 3 days and counting...

I have kept an eye on the mempool data and I must say things are looking dire to any transaction below 5 sat/vB.
If your transactions becomes urgent as days pass, you would consider to increase the fee, it could be weeks before we go back to 1 sat/vB levels.

An equivalent would be to present your art piece at the Louvre in comparison to do it in your local museum.

But even local museum have standard and limit total art which can be shown/stored.

At the time being the protocol does not have an equivalence to a guard or museum curator who would control the inflow of Master Pieces mixed with the bulk of garbage. Still waiting on the good news, though...

[franky1]

reason there should not be nasty illicit material on the blockchain
a. the mining pool collating data into a blocktemplate become legally liable for the content they allowed into their block
b. if they did, the mining pool owner then becomes a criminal for mass distributing illegal content
c. the onus of what ordinals are put into the blockchain is on the mining pools

until we bring the byte per input witness/output witness down to purposeful amounts

what a full node needs to do is reject blocks including such nasty material
this currently due to lack of a red button in core to manually reject a block individuals spot as illicit. requires quick communications of the economic nodes and mining nodes to monitor the content and tell each other to do it in their special (tweaked nodes) to reject blocks and re-org in the first few freshblocks to ensure bad content does not get included and made immutable by reaching a confirm threshold that makes it impossible to remove blocks

at this precise moment we have only the hope that a mining pool is just not stupid enough to want to become criminals by adding such nasty content

the large pools are easily identifiable so risk of nasty content is low. but it would only take a immoral pool with some easy methods to hide which pool mined it(not going to say how, dont want to promote the possibility of them doing it) to slip something nasty into a block

also subnetworks that are not blockchains have no timestamp logs of ownership transfer nor timestamp NFT creation..  thus are the wrong type of network for NFT ownership transfers/births

so to the group that love such silly flawed network. i know you want to grab onto whatever popular fad, viral buzzword and feature you can to hope it can hype up utility on your silly network.. again your silly network has failed another "fit for purpose" test for any hope or dream of having a wide use-case purpose

NFT will be on a side chain not a smart contract network

[larry_vw_1955]

at this precise moment we have only the hope that a mining pool is just not stupid enough to want to become criminals by adding such nasty content

not sure they have any control over that, franky. you expect miners to open up the jpegs of a transaction to see if it has any nudes? while they're doing that, someone else might have found a hash that met the difficulty requirement.

[nutildah]

disagree. look at some of the crap people are storing there. there's no money motivation for i'd say 99% of them so far. as far as Mr. Rodarmor, i'm not even sure he even cares or considered the impact of his "invention" on the blockchain.

There's been several thousand sales and transfers of them already, so its far more than 1%. The motivation was he did it because he could -- there needn't be any further explanation. He is playing within the rules of the system, as is everybody who is doing inscriptions.

well i mean if that happens then ordinals would be a dead project and their images would too. so it would kind of be like they wasted their money.

Not at all. The inscriptions that are already there cannot be removed, they will always be there (except locally through node pruning). If a change was made that prevented new ones from being made, it will only make the pre-existing ordinals that use them all the more valuable.

like what?

Like storing any type of data that one wants to render immutable in the world's most secure blockchain.

[Wind_FURY]

We can't determine, nor debate, what can and what can't have value, or what actually has value, except for the market to accept "it" for the fair asking price. I believe we just have to merely accept it, BUT we shall agree that the development of NFT in the Bitcoin blockchain is not pushing the boundaries of Science anymore. It's actually in the world of stupid. Censorship-resistant dick pics and fart sounds are stupid.

We talk about the uselessness of NFTs and their scam nature but that is not the debate.

You brought that to the conversation, I merely said uselessness for you will not be uselessness for collectors of NFT. Plus its value will depend on how much the market prices them.

Bitcoin was not invented to become some sort of cloud storage where people upload their files. The debate about NFTs and other tokens on bitcoin blockchain is also not about their usefulness, their value or anything like that. It is all about using a system in a way that it is not supposed to be used.

It wasn't, but there are users who can currently use them to inscribe dick picks and fart sounds, because of a hack in Taproot that a developer discovered. I'm with your side of the debate, but we also can't demand for censorship.

We also can't demand for those NFT transactions to be censored, because it would be a failure to Bitcoin's Ethos if it actually happens.
 

Bitcoin is meant to be a currency people use for payment, using it for anything else is actually against its "Ethos". Also:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5437787.msg61733370#msg61733370

That's debatable at best in my opinion. Its main ethos, main value-proposition, is and always will be censorship-resistance.

[franky1]

It wasn't, but there are users who can currently use them to inscribe dick picks and fart sounds, because of a hack in Taproot that a developer discovered. I'm with your side of the debate, but we also can't demand for censorship.

We also can't demand for those NFT transactions to be censored, because it would be a failure to Bitcoin's Ethos if it actually happens.
 
That's debatable at best in my opinion. Its main ethos, main value-proposition, is and always will be censorship-resistance.

windfury you are listening to doomads social club too much
i know he tells you not to do research. but thats his game.

break free and be confident to do your own research and have your own thoughts that are not the same sounding buzzwords as doomads claims
..
consensus is consent by the masses
bitcoin has always had consent as part of its ethos

to move YOUR value on YOUR address, the network needs YOUR consent from YOUR signature to move your coins to someone else

the network needed(past tense) the consensus of majority of nodes to then activate a new rule

do you see how bitcoin IS a consent network

bitcoins ethos about consent was and is being brutalised, where the rules were softened and some rules removed.

doomad pretend there is no consensus.. he is wrong.
 
the buddy you idolise, loves the idea of brutilising bitcoin because it makes the subnetwork he loves an escape route to run to. so he can profit from processing peoples payments on the subnetwork

your buddy loves the idea that people need to lock up value with another person who is required to be online to co-sign your payments, he loves middlemen taking a cut and being in charge

bitcoin has never been "permissionless"
because your buddy does not understand words such as consent and permission

if you think "anything funky should be allowed"
then why have rules that stop litecoin tx's be "isvalid" on bitcoin
then why have rules that stop bsv tx's be "isvalid" on bitcoin
then why have rules that stop ethereum tx's be "isvalid" on bitcoin

because. bitcoin is for bitcoin payments. thats why
its not for monkey memes, fart sounds

It wasn't, but there are users who can currently use them to inscribe dick picks and fart sounds, because of a hack in Taproot that a developer discovered. I'm with your side of the debate, but we also can't demand for censorship.

but atleast you admit that the fart was added via a hack and not "bitcoin ethos"
atleast you do know the truth even though you just 99% of the time just repeating the stupid of stuff doomads social club told you

[Wind_FURY]

what a full node needs to do is reject blocks including such nasty material
this currently due to lack of a red button in core to manually reject a block individuals spot as illicit.

This is tall order. For starter, full node software isn't even aware of Ordinal protocol.

The mere suggestion itself is very foolish. Plus wouldn't that cause a fork? If the Core developers implemented a "red button" for full nodes to reject blocks it doesn't want, but not the whole network agrees to the upgrade by refusal to upgrade their nodes, then it will not only fork the network, it will also split the community.

I thought he said we don't do our research.

It wasn't, but there are users who can currently use them to inscribe dick picks and fart sounds, because of a hack in Taproot that a developer discovered. I'm with your side of the debate, but we also can't demand for censorship.

We also can't demand for those NFT transactions to be censored, because it would be a failure to Bitcoin's Ethos if it actually happens.
 
That's debatable at best in my opinion. Its main ethos, main value-proposition, is and always will be censorship-resistance.

--Snip--

 

Stop the social drama, franky-101.

[franky1]

what a full node needs to do is reject blocks including such nasty material
this currently due to lack of a red button in core to manually reject a block individuals spot as illicit.

This is tall order. For starter, full node software isn't even aware of Ordinal protocol.

read the content. dont take a snippet

until we bring the byte per input witness/output witness down to purposeful amounts

what a full node needs to do is reject blocks including such nasty material
this currently due to lack of a red button in core to manually reject a block individuals spot as illicit. requires quick communications of the economic nodes and mining nodes to monitor the content and tell each other to do it in their special (tweaked nodes) to reject blocks and re-org in the first few freshblocks to ensure bad content does not get included and made immutable by reaching a confirm threshold that makes it impossible to remove blocks

at this precise moment we have only the hope that a mining pool is just not stupid enough to want to become criminals by adding such nasty content

no where in the full context was it a proposal of a "red button".. but nice try making it seem so

,,
it was not a proposal. it was a response to hisbro envisioning a "guard" and me showing how due to a lack of a red button at a individual guard principle he mentioned....

yea guys nice try. but it helps to learn that although you might snippet and take things out of context. the forum shows and stores full content..

so stick with the full content of a post not try to take a snippet to try to imply something else

[mendace]

I'm not sure what the motivation was for Casey Rodarmor to put his system together -- experimentation is often fueled by simply wanting to test the bounds of what can be done -- but the people creating NFTs with it are certainly doing it out of financial motivation, for the most part.

The novelness is already beginning to wear off, however, and it will be a matter of interest maintenance to keep prices high, just like every other NFT project... constant social maneuvering to maintain relevance in the face of a flood of new NFTs being created across a dozen blockchains every day.

I think we're witnessing a rush for people to get their stuff inscribed now in case changes are made to the protocol to prevent such "abuse" from happening in the future. There is just something about putting your art on the Bitcoin blockchain that is so damn appealing.

The potential applications for this beyond art are limitless, however. A lot of potential utility here. Art NFTs just happen to be the gateway to onboarding normies to crypto.

I think that, unlike Ethereum, artists and professionals - and by that I mean those with experience - won't move to Bitcoin because they have already received a negative response from the way the NFT bubble ended. On the other hand, BTC seems to me to be a race for profit by some speculators.

[franky1]

How would i know you were responding to another user (i assume you're talking about "Hispo" not "hisbro") when you didn't quote his post or even mentioning his username? Without that some people would take your post as proposal or response to OP's initial post. Anyway, your post make sense once i know it's response against idea of "guard" to filter TX.

usually in discussing when there is a reply. its replying to the last thing said (hispo was posting previous to mine)

however to reply to an earlier conversation. thats where you would need to break the current conversation to respond to earlier conversation by quoting earlier conversation

EG if i wanted to respond to the OP topic post i would quote the op topic post because there are too many other conversations afterwards.  

[n0nce]

That's debatable at best in my opinion. Its main ethos, main value-proposition, is and always will be censorship-resistance.

Censorship-resistant, peer-to-peer electronic cash. It's as if you stopped your sentence half-way through.
It has never been about censorship-resistant cloud storage. Big distinction.

because. bitcoin is for bitcoin payments. thats why
its not for monkey memes, fart sounds

I wholeheartedly agree with this and also believe that (1) there is nothing comparable to Bitcoin and it is extremely important for humanity. (2) abusing it for uncensored cloud storage will bite (1) in the ass & put the whole project at risk (due to legal and moral issues of storing anything that anyone pays for).

If someone is very passionate about freedom cloud storage, why can't they build their own network for that? They should commit to storing anything from anyone, as long as they pay for it, but not force us to do it on our payment network.

[DooMAD]

doomad pretend there is no consensus.. he is wrong.

Just because I disagree with your moronic and demonstrably wrong definition of "tRuE cOnSeNsUs" (stupid franky1 catchphrase), doesn't means I deny the existence of consensus.  I also recognise the existence of opt-in consensus, which is the part franky1 appears to struggle with.  Since franky1 is big on fairytales and nonsense, consider the following made up story (based on true events):

One day, Alice, Bob, Charlie, Dave, Ellie and Frank all agree to meet once roughly every 10 days to eat ice cream.  It becomes their regular routine.  One could describe this as a consensus agreement.  After a while, along with bringing ice cream, Bob decides to bring waffle cones and starts eating his ice cream out of a cone instead of a bowl like everyone else does.  Frank says this wasn't part of the agreement and says that 95% of the group have to agree before Bob can eat his ice cream from a cone.  Bob ignores Frank and continues to eat from a cone.  On the next gathering, Alice then turns up with sprinkles and puts those on her ice cream.  Frank starts having a hissy-fit and screeching about "tRuE cOnSeNsUs", but no one listens to him.  And then on the next gathering Dave turns up with chocolate sauce and before long everyone apart from Frank is putting all this extra stuff on their ice cream.  Frank goes off the deep end and compares everyone to rapists because he hasn't given his approval for any of this extra stuff.  The others reply that they're still meeting the agreed terms and haven't broken the consensus agreement because they're gathering roughly every 10 days to eat ice cream.  They also suggest Frank seeks some psychological help, because there's clearly something wrong with him.  There's nothing Frank can do about it and the others continue to enjoy their assorted toppings / cones /etc.  And so, the group continued to meet roughly every 10 days for ice cream.  And they all lived happily ever after, except Frank, who remained miserable for the rest of his life because he couldn't order people about like he wanted to.  The end.

 

[franky1]

gotta laugh

doomad has no concept of consensus

you dont just turn up with waffle cones and think only franky thinks thats odd.. the whole group thinks its odd and throws the waffles in the trash

.. well that was consensus 2009-2016 when waffles would only become new consensus when majority decides waffles look good to want them on the table..  and the majority get to decide that from now on everyone thinks waffles are acceptable and they all have the choice of waffles not just bob
but it requires the consensus decision.. and not just bob eating waffles while everyone else  has no way to get waffles or check the waffles are not stale or no way to reject waffles or accept waffles themselves

if you think bob can just do as he pleases and everyone else ignores bob. unable to check the quality of waffles.  then you have no clue

doomad forgot the main thing..
in his own story he said the table decided on icecream
thats why they were eating icecream and not [insert random thing doomad wants to bring to the table]

bob broke the rules by bringing waffles(under 2009-2016 consensus).. but since 2017 with consensus being softened. bob NOW can because there is no true consensus anymore. its been softened to let [insert anything] without being treated as odd

doomad falsely thinks there never was consensus. in other words there was never a icecream agreement

consensus needs to re-hardened so that bob cant just bring along his dozen bloated monkeys next time to steal peoples seats at the table

extending doomads story starting from 2017
doomad is part of a few monkey brains.. that love bananas not coffee flavoured icecream

doomad wants to bring bananas to have icecream sundae splits, you know. sliding in a change without it feeling like its a change/new rule but just a soft addition

then bring his 12 bloated monkeys that dont like icecream but just want the banana's . then he wants to say icecream is not allowed at the table because its coffee flavoured

something doomad hates coffee flavour being on the table. he wants coffee pushed off the edge and put on his favoured LiNoleum floor (LN flaw) where he can make money from the coffee icecream, by making people lick the drips off the floor