On Ordinals: Where do you stand?

[nutildah]

i did. there are many posts
where i said about it

no, there isn't a single one that reflects an actual grasp of how the protocol works. you did not DYOR, or if you did it was pretty poor R.

we're done here for now.

[1714472631]

1714472631

[1714472631]

1714472631

[1714472631]

1714472631

[1714472631]

1714472631

[1714472631]

1714472631

[pooya87]

This topic is getting far from what really matters by arguing about details of this attack! Whether the garbage is injected into the blockchain once or injected on each transfer (first one is correct BTW) doesn't change anything about the fact that they ARE injecting garbage into the blockchain and they ARE abusing the system and it IS harmful to bitcoin if this continues and grows...

[franky1]

This topic is getting far from what really matters by arguing about details of this attack! Whether the garbage is injected into the blockchain once or injected on each transfer (first one is correct BTW) doesn't change anything about the fact that they ARE injecting garbage into the blockchain and they ARE abusing the system and it IS harmful to bitcoin if this continues and grows...

i was trying to simply explain it fails the NFT test of ownership due to lack of transfering the meme or a hash of meme per tx

shame it takes the adoration brigade/blind devotee's several posts of explaining things before they realise what they got suckered into.

but yes. this junk is junk and not even a NFT thing. as its not a solid method of ownership control.
thus has no purpose. thus something we shouldnt let keep being added to bitcoin, as even NFT is not a purpose of bitcoin "ethos"

[n0nce]

What we must fight for is for legislation equiparing Bitcoin explicitly with ISPs in this aspect (everybody in his jurisdiction).

ISPs are not storing and distributing illegal material, though, right? Such as copyrighted movies or much, much worse..?

I'm afraid that no modern cryptography can solve that problem - if somebody is able to read the data, even the uploader himself, then he can make them accessible for others, too, if this is his intent.

Should we not aim to make it as hard as e.g. Grin is making it (or maybe even doing better than that) to abuse the system and put Bitcoin nodes at risk of legal trouble, just because it is still possible there, at a much lesser extent?

[larry_vw_1955]

Why didn't you correct him on how the system actually functions?

thanks nutildah, i was a bit confused on how it exactly works but i know you mentioned once and now twice that it doesn't get transferred to each new transaction. i wasn't quite sure what franky was saying but now i think i understand what both of you are saying. but imma have to look into the details myself to get a better understanding so thanks for pointing them out.  

but yes. this junk is junk and not even a NFT thing. as its not a solid method of ownership control.

i'll have to look into this aspect of it franky but one thing i can say for sure is it's very easy to counterfeit an ordinal. just mint the content in a new bitcoin transaction and now you own a bored ape or whatever other "nft" you wanted! seems so easy right? the only thing that proves yours is not the real one is if someone else's has a lower inscription #. you could make 1000 bored apes if you wanted to and no one can stop you! 

[pooya87]

i'll have to look into this aspect of it franky but one thing i can say for sure is it's very easy to counterfeit an ordinal. just mint the content in a new bitcoin transaction and now you own a bored ape or whatever other "nft" you wanted! seems so easy right? the only thing that proves yours is not the real one is if someone else's has a lower inscription #. you could make 1000 bored apes if you wanted to and no one can stop you! 

That's the inherent flaw of tokens in general. They all can be counterfeited. Specially the so called "art" related tokens where the "art" is stored in a centralized website accessible to anyone who doesn't even have to own the token to access and download it! All you have to do is create a duplicate of the "art" and make your own token from it.

[nutildah]

it's very easy to counterfeit an ordinal. just mint the content in a new bitcoin transaction and now you own a bored ape or whatever other "nft" you wanted! seems so easy right?

This has always been the case with every NFT on every blockchain. Nothing is stopping you from creating a fake Bored Ape, just like nothing is stopping you from painting a fake Picasso. People who know how to read the blockchain or look for signs of forgery in paintings will be able to spot the difference between real and fake pretty easily, however.

Have yet to hear a single argument against NFTs that either

- doesn't also apply to the physical counterparts they are emulating, or
- doesn't also apply to bitcoin and all other cryptocurrencies.

[franky1]

having provenance of a "lower #" is one thing. but thats just receipts. thats just chain of provenance.

take real world art
if you went to an auction house not with the art in your hand. but just a box of receipts that show a chain of purchases that predates someone elses receipts..

but can you truly say you actually hold the art and want to sell the art if you are not also actually holding the art and only holding the receipts

this is why nft need to bring the file or file hash forward into the tx data of the recipient. where the recipient can control where it next moves which destroys the previous parents control

as oppose to keeping the art vaulted up at some origin point where casey can simply change his algo(de-peg) and declare new owners by saying "instead of first sat, i now declare last sat owns the association to witness bloat of the vault"
where by no chain re-orgs happen. but suddenly owners change overnight and the provenance has changed.

a true nft system truly spends the nft out of origin control by actually passing the property/value to the new owner. where you can actually see who is the unspent owner that actually has the property/value in their tx

this is why i have been saying that casey idea is not a NFT. because it would need to move the property forward.. and caseys idea doesnt.

he says/promotes/words it, that the witness is linked to output0 and whoever has output0 owned it.
but that can be de-pegged easily by changing his algo to say all outputs 1 own the association
and in a n instant his analysis of provenance follows a different taint path from origin to different descendant(it does not require re-orging the blockchain to break caseys provenance idea)

however if the file hash was included in each tx. THEN it would be impossible to de-peg and thus securing ownership to the current file hash holder in the active unspent tx where the data in the original creation tx is deemed as spent and changing a taint algo isnt able to just declare a different output as owner

..
once you read passed the illusion of "what casey says is..."
and actually look at the code and data and use real world scenarios based on the actual data that is on the blockchain.
emphasis think outside the box of casey quotes.
you will see that ordinals are not NFT system and can easily de-peg. thus ordinals are not a feature of NFT and thus not something we should support while it is being abused to reduce bitcoins real utility(payment network of actual value thet does and should move per tx)

[d5000]

ISPs are not storing and distributing illegal material, though, right? Such as copyrighted movies or much, much worse..?

They're not 100% the same as Bitcoin. But they do distribute illegal content as a "side effect" of their normal operation.

Let's say we have server A with classified military information (to not always use the same example). In some darknet forum B, user C (customer of ISP D) reads the onion address to download the material, and proceeds to do so. While the "intent" comes from C, D is the one facilitating the file transfer from server A to user C (at least for the last mile). Normally they (afaik) even store the packages composing the content for a short time. ISP D is obviously (normally) not "willing" to do that with illegal material, but due to the structure of Internet as such it's the entity who "delivers" the cuestionable object. (The only way ISP D can prevent this is some kind of content filter but that can be easily circunvented.) But normally, those which can be sued are not D but A, B (if it acts with "intent" to provide information about illegal data) and C.

In the case of Bitcoin it's not 100% the same, as the data is stored permanently, but similar. If a node operator distributes illegal material, it's a side effect of his normal operation. If the node isn't the originator, then he should also not be legally responsible. And my interpretation is that this is what this Princeton guy meant in the 2018 article.

Should we not aim to make it as hard as e.g. Grin is making it (or maybe even doing better than that) to abuse the system and put Bitcoin nodes at risk of legal trouble, just because it is still possible there, at a much lesser extent?

I personally would have no problem with attempting to improve the "financial transaction data to arbitrary data" equation. However, there is some functionality which while it's financial in nature, can also be used for other purposes, and I wouldn't like to be crippled. An example is Lightning Network, which depends on scripting. Scripting will always have the side effect of permitting to store some arbitrary data.

My fear is that if Bitcoin advances in the direction of Grin due to fears of legal trouble for node operators, a discussion could arise which aims to make such extreme anti-arbitrary-data-measures mandatory for "legal" blockchains. IMO this would cripple the whole blockchain/crypto space too much. I don't care about NFTs (at least not for the "data stored on chain" model) but I like some smart contracting abilities, like decentralized options, LN, atomic swaps, discreet log contracts, etc. and if they become impossible then the openness of the crypto ecosystem is seriously harmed, I think.

So the fight should go into another direction: highlighting the similarities of Bitcoin, ISPs, Freenet, IXP operators and other entities/protocols which can sometimes distribute illegal data as a side effect of their normal operation.

This can be accompanied by technical measures to lower the data possible to be stored per transaction/output, but imo this is another discussion, aimed more at improving blockchain efficiency for financial txes.

And again, the "destructive attack" of someone wanting to cause harm inserting illegal data is even possible with Grin-like "spam resistance". The more market cap Bitcoin gets, more likely (due to immense profit possibilities) is someone wanting to short the BTC price down almost to 0, and such an entity could thus afford lots of fees.

[larry_vw_1955]

it's very easy to counterfeit an ordinal. just mint the content in a new bitcoin transaction and now you own a bored ape or whatever other "nft" you wanted! seems so easy right?

This has always been the case with every NFT on every blockchain. Nothing is stopping you from creating a fake Bored Ape, just like nothing is stopping you from painting a fake Picasso.

as bitcoin "nfts" become more mainstream, i guess this distinction won't matter as much because there will be marketplaces similar to opensea where people use as the "interface" to the bitcoin ecosystem but if someone is just using the ordinals explorer then everything looks the same. the only thing you can go by is which one came first. the one with the lower inscription # is assumed to be the "original". that could be problematic in certain situations. don't you think?

People who know how to read the blockchain or look for signs of forgery in paintings will be able to spot the difference between real and fake pretty easily, however.

i don't know about that. show me any image on the internet and i think it's possible to download it and inscribe it onto bitcoin and it will be an exact duplicate. as long as whatever service you use is not doing any image compression or something.

Have yet to hear a single argument against NFTs that either

- doesn't also apply to the physical counterparts they are emulating, or
- doesn't also apply to bitcoin and all other cryptocurrencies.

i'm not arguing against the utility of nfts. i understand they do have various use cases. the one use case though that i think is becoming a bit suspect is "owning" a picture. especially now that you can upload anything you want to to bitcoin. as many times as you want to and the original owner might not even be first. i'm sure you would say "no one owns a picture they just own the digital rights to it" well whatever! not even sure what that means...

however if the file hash was included in each tx. THEN it would be impossible to de-peg and thus securing ownership to the current file hash holder in the active unspent tx where the data in the original creation tx is deemed as spent and changing a taint algo isnt able to just declare a different output as owner

you make some really good points franky. i am probably 100 percent sure that people that are using this ordinals have no idea about all those issues and don't even care at all. that's just how end users are. hopefully it won't bite them in their rear end oneday!

[n0nce]

Nothing is stopping you from creating a fake Bored Ape, just like nothing is stopping you from painting a fake Picasso. People who know how to read the blockchain or look for signs of forgery in paintings will be able to spot the difference between real and fake pretty easily, however.

Have yet to hear a single argument against NFTs that either
- doesn't also apply to the physical counterparts they are emulating, or

Here is one: A file that I right-click save to my disk is a 1:1 byte-to-byte identical copy of the original. My downloaded 'fake Bored Ape' is indeed not fake, it is the exact same picture, it is an immaculately perfect, pristine copy of the entire digital file, without mistakes, differences or flaws.
Meanwhile it is impossible to recreate a physical painting. Even the original creator cannot duplicate every single brushstroke, the exact color mixes, details and imperfections.

The difference lies in the difference of stealing digital files vs. stealing real objects. When you steal a file, you create a copy and the original owner still keeps his copy. In fact, it is impossible to know whether any of your files is guaranteed not to have been copied somewhere else. Meanwhile a physical object is either there or it's not. There is no way to duplicate it, you can only try to recreate it, but it will never be the exact same, identical 'thing'.

When you buy an NFT, you do buy the rights to a file, but you could do that just as easily without a blockchain. You can have a written contract from the artist / invoice proving you bought the ownership rights to it. If someone copies it and uses it e.g. on their website, the blockchain won't help you against the 'theft', but you will need to sue the person. You can do that if you own the rights of digital media, and you could do that long before NFTs.
The bottom line is, NFTs don't - and, in fact, can't - solve a real problem. That is why many people deem them unnecessary.

ISPs are not storing and distributing illegal material, though, right? Such as copyrighted movies or much, much worse..?

They're not 100% the same as Bitcoin. But they do distribute illegal content as a "side effect" of their normal operation.

Let's say we have server A with classified military information (to not always use the same example). In some darknet forum B [...]

ISPs don't store the data, and especially don't store it in cleartext. Darknet forums reside on the Tor network and thus if an ISP routes a Tor packet, never has access to the cleartext data inside. Meanwhile here, we talk about storing and serving cleartext illegal data.
It is beyond me how these things are remotely comparable.
(1) Route some encrypted data
(2) Store and seed completely cleartext data

Do consider that ISPs sometimes actually refuse to route certain data, e.g. blocking certain websites that are illegal to view in that country. It probably has something to do with that temporary cache storage you brought up.

Should we not aim to make it as hard as e.g. Grin is making it (or maybe even doing better than that) to abuse the system and put Bitcoin nodes at risk of legal trouble, just because it is still possible there, at a much lesser extent?

I personally would have no problem with attempting to improve the "financial transaction data to arbitrary data" equation. However, there is some functionality which while it's financial in nature, can also be used for other purposes, and I wouldn't like to be crippled. An example is Lightning Network, which depends on scripting. Scripting will always have the side effect of permitting to store some arbitrary data.

That's true, I considered that too. I believe that we will need to keep scripts, and I'm not sure how to get closer to a Grin-type of 'equation' without inhibiting them. One option would be to specifically 'whitelist' payment channel creation scripts, without allowing to just use any arbitrary script. New Bitcoin features realized through special scripts, like submarine or cross-chain swaps would need to be specifically added via a BIP process or something like that, so that everyone agrees on it first and people don't just go and throw weird stuff onto mainnet.

[franky1]

here is the thing about those saying scripts need to be dropped to kill ordinals
this is not true

for each input/output when defining a sigopcode/opcode each input/output should know its byte limit due to which sigopcode/opcode is used for each input/output respectively for the appending script of a tx
EG if it was a multisig of 15of 15 then thats a 72byte(signature) x15
meaning 1.1kb~

or where using taproot multisig the promise was 1 signature length

there is no need for an input to need 10kb or 3.99mb per sigop
there is no need for whole tx to need 3.99mb

things can be strengthened.
EG max sigops per tx. max inputs per tx, max outputs per tx
there is no need for a tx to have
and then defining how many bytes each type of sigops requires EG 1xsigop length to 15xsigop lengths
and none of the "take upto 3.99mb if you want it"

as to caseys impementation. its not a true NFT due to its mechanisms not actually pegging-tethering the appended meme bloat data to actual inpots which follow the output into a new tx. it says in a valuted creatin tx. thus can be de-pegged/ untethered with just a couple lines of code and not requiring altering or re-orging block data. thus easy to de-peg. thus not a true secure NFT system nor a good way of proving ownership due to the ease of changing which output casey decides should be linked to appended data

EG human readable and translated form of a tx
-start of tx-
bc1ccoinbasereward (6.25) -> bc1poutput0 (0.00000001)
                                             bc1poutput1 (2.00000001)
                                             bc1poutput2 (4.23999697) 300sat fee
                                             bc1poutput3 (0.00000001)
                signed: bc1ccoinbasereward signature
                meme data
-end of tx-
where caseys algo say memedata is associated with bc1poutput0 (0.00000001)
the memedata does not in data form move with bc1poutput0 (0.00000001)
it stays in that creation tx
again for emphasis
caseys algo say memedata is associated with bc1poutput0 (0.00000001)
but thats just known in caseys algo
and he can without changing the tx data, without changing block data. one day say
but caseys law is not in the bitcoin protocol. its caseys "law" saying he now delays its no longer "first sat" bit instead last sat of a block reward (aka bc1poutput3 (0.00000001))

[larry_vw_1955]

EG human readable and translated form of a tx
-start of tx-
bc1ccoinbasereward (6.25) -> bc1poutput0 (0.00000001)
                                             bc1poutput1 (2.00000001)
                                             bc1poutput2 (4.23999697) 300sat fee
                                             bc1poutput3 (0.00000001)
                signed: bc1ccoinbasereward signature
                meme data
-end of tx-
where caseys algo say memedata is associated with bc1poutput0 (0.00000001)
the memedata does not in data form move with bc1poutput0 (0.00000001)
it stays in that creation tx

that got me thinking since the data doesn't follow along with the next tx outputs then you could just arbitrarily modify the code to stop it at any point along the inheritance path of that satoshi you could even say the original address that satoshi belonged to was now the true owner and so everyone that bought and sold it after that they are erased like chalk from a chalkboard.   the only hope those people would have is that "most" people use the original ordinals software so agree on their version of how it is supposed to work. doesn't sound like a very solid foundation to me but that's what you get when you use loophole to build something.

Here is one: A file that I right-click save to my disk is a 1:1 byte-to-byte identical copy of the original. My downloaded 'fake Bored Ape' is indeed not fake, it is the exact same picture, it is an immaculately perfect, pristine copy of the entire digital file, without mistakes, differences or flaws.
Meanwhile it is impossible to recreate a physical painting. Even the original creator cannot duplicate every single brushstroke, the exact color mixes, details and imperfections.

good example. and you are certainly correct. don't forget too you can upload that 1:1 byte-to-byte identical copy of the original onto bitcoin right now and it might be the first time it appeared on bitcoin. so as far as bitcoin is concerned you are the original owner. since your inscription # is lowest.  

[franky1]

i still laugh at the people that for X years have been saying
"do not let tx scaling occur becasue it wil bloat up the blocks"
are now saying
"do not let tx scaling occur bloat up the blocks with memes"

they do not care about mining pools total tx fee balance award
they jsut want individual users to pay extra fee's so that bitcoin becomes annoyingly expensive to use

yep they dont want cheap fee's or fee mechanisms that make it good to use boitcoin. they want people to pay more.

its all a game to get people to stop using bitcoin and start using other networks for payments.

those types of people are not bitcoiners. nor even care for bitcoin security
they promote pruning and softer rules to not be verified.

they are shameful and malicious

[nutildah]

Here is one: A file that I right-click save to my disk is a 1:1 byte-to-byte identical copy of the original. My downloaded 'fake Bored Ape' is indeed not fake, it is the exact same picture, it is an immaculately perfect, pristine copy of the entire digital file, without mistakes, differences or flaws.
Meanwhile it is impossible to recreate a physical painting. Even the original creator cannot duplicate every single brushstroke, the exact color mixes, details and imperfections.

good example. and you are certainly correct.

Not really. You can't forge a blockchain timestamp. There is only 1 valid mint tx ID for a Bored Ape NFT, and it can only be owned by 1 Ethereum address at a time. They can only be minted by 1 Ethereum smart contract. Everything else that uses the same JPG is a forgery, including anything on other blockchains. These elements are why knowing how to spot frauds comes in handy. Once you understand this, you'll realize why its actually impossible to create duplicate NFTs (hence the term "non-fungible").

don't forget too you can upload that 1:1 byte-to-byte identical copy of the original onto bitcoin right now and it might be the first time it appeared on bitcoin. so as far as bitcoin is concerned you are the original owner. since your inscription # is lowest.  

Sure, you are the original owner of a fake Bored Ape, congratulations. Go ahead and mint as many fake Bored Apes on Bitcoin as you want (wouldn't be surprised if its been done already). Let's see how much money you can get for them compared to the real deal.

[franky1]

nutildah you have no concept of non fungible tokens because you have yet to learn the lack of transfer

also using bitcoin as the bloat library to then use ethereum as a value transfer. is not helping bitcoin be a value transfer(payment system)

but it seems you have no desire of caring about bitcoin being a payment system. you just want to bloat bitcoin into a useless library network of dead data to promote ethereum as a paymetn network

shameful

as for

Not really. You can't forge a blockchain timestamp.

oh yes it can be done
heres one example

create a new blockchain. throw in the 100,000+ memes of bitcoin dead meme data into the first 100,000+ blocks of a new blockchain with super low difficulty. add a time stamp of 10min intervals per block(simple math of unix time addition per block creation)
but premining them super quick succession in seconds per block (600x speed)
repeat until say block 800,000 (it will take about 10 days)
whereby from block800,001 you then release the blockchain to then mine at normal speed of ~10min per block with real time added

thus all appearances show that this blockchain is 15 years old and started in march 2008 and all the ordinals were present in before march2010(the 100,000th block) where by it was always around, just not publicly talked about until now. but for all intense and purposes of timestamps and blockheight. it appears to be the age it implies

pre dating all provenances of 2023

its easy to spot the types of people that dont care about the viability/security of a payment system..
its the type of people that just pretend their new scheme they bought into is utopian dream of hope and promise to recruit other people into just so the promoter can get rich quick by scamming the sucker they recruited into handing them money so the promoter can escape the scam before it collapses.. not caring about who it leaves behind

ordinal does not have NFT status. as it does not transfer ownership the way you want to think it does..
but heck why do you care. as long as you make quick greedy profits your willing to say or believe anything as long as you can pass on the problems to other people, whilst you take their value

if you cared about value security (store of value) you would be trying to scrutinise and look for the loopholes and bugs and flaws to try and get them fixed to protect value.

[nutildah]

Not really. You can't forge a blockchain timestamp.

oh yes it can be done
heres one example

create a new blockchain.

 

Did anybody read this and think, "franky1 brings up a very good point, looks like nutildah is wrong after all"?

He's now just arguing for the sake of arguing.

ordinal does not have NFT status. as it does not transfer ownership the way you want to think it does..

Again, this is according to your personally-held definition of what an NFT is, which nobody cares about.

but heck why do you care. as long as you make quick greedy profits your willing to say or beleive anything as long as you can pass on the problems to other people

I already told you I didn't buy a single ordinal, I don't care whether they succeed on the marketplace or not. It is highly interesting that somebody found a way to use witness data in this manner and also highly entertaining to watch libertarians and freedom absolutists cry over it.

[franky1]

you said a time stamp cant be forged.
my post just proved someone can make a timestamped blockchain in 10 days that make it appear that it is 15 years old and has your silly image your trying to sell in 2023 inside a timestamped dated block that appears to have existed between march 2008-march 2010

your just upset how easy it was to debunk you

[nutildah]

you said a time stamp cant be forged.
my post just proved someone can make a timestamped blockchain in 10 days that make it appear that it is 15 years old and has your silly image your trying to sell in 2023 inside a timestamped dated block that appears to have existed between march 2008-march 2010

your just upset how easy it was to debunk you

You're not "forging a timestamp", you're creating a timestamp on a different blockchain.

[franky1]

you said a time stamp cant be forged.
my post just proved someone can make a timestamped blockchain in 10 days that make it appear that it is 15 years old and has your silly image your trying to sell in 2023 inside a timestamped dated block that appears to have existed between march 2008-march 2010

your just upset how easy it was to debunk you

You're not "forging a timestamp", you're creating a timestamp on a different blockchain.

which will be seen as pre dating your time stamp. thus which one is the forgery now

also..
again..

I already told you I didn't buy a single ordinal,

really..? oh let me guess. the get out clause "single".. because you bought 2 of them not just 1

20 purchases so far in the last 24 hours, not too bad. I was 2 of them