On Ordinals: Where do you stand?

[Pierre 2]

For start, I played through some games that use nfts on binance smart chain before, but I don't exactly invest into nfts other than it. I feel like increasing cost of Bitcoin transfer is really bad thing. Everyone would agree on that. But I don't exactly understand why we 'should not' support Ordinals project. This can be seen as just another feature of Bitcoin's Blockchain which is not bad at all. I know some core developers hate the idea... But we can see it as side effect of technological developments. Sometimes when people suggest there should be complete sidechain(s) to use NFTs I guess I also agree with them.

[1714480152]

1714480152

[1714480152]

1714480152

[nutildah]

This isn't how any of this works. Once again, the only thing you demonstrated is that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. You continue to mindlessly spew assertions that you _think_ are correct with no actual understanding of how inscriptions or ordinal transfers work. Its like you have no regard for reality whatsoever.

You don't need to move the "dead weight" to follow ownership of it. That is part of the protocol design. Not everything needs to have on-chain references in order for it to work, the protocol accounts for ownership through transfer of the ordinal, which is done via coin control so it is not lost, sent to a change address, miner or elsewhere.

Its clear franky isn't interested in learning anything but for everyone else, we can go back to the Bitcoin Punk example from earlier:

https://ordinals.com/inscription/b7a5cffd28b6c2db37880ac0321b18b4985c2ae4d75584a264d1334320ef532fi0

id = b7a5cffd28b6c2db37880ac0321b18b4985c2ae4d75584a264d1334320ef532fi0 (inscription tx ID + "i0")
address = 1PUY4ugnZ3oFtke6YU4LqpZeJhUNjyssjM (current address of owner)

Looking at the incription tx ID, we see the bloated witness, a single input and a single output, bc1pme4...

Looking at the transfer tx, we see the regular-sized witness, a single input (bc1pme4...) and a single output, 1PUY4...

And according to the ordinals.com inscription explorer, which operates according to the rules of the protocol, the current owner of inscription ID b7a5c... is... 1PUY4...

Its not magic... there is no mystery or ambiguity in how it works. The rules are well defined and it wouldn't make any sense to change them.

[larry_vw_1955]

And according to the ordinals.com inscription explorer, which operates according to the rules of the protocol, the current owner of inscription ID b7a5c... is... 1PUY4...

that's not apparent though if you're just browsing a blockchain explorer or you have your own full node and you're investigating that particular address. all you see is it's current balance, transaction history, total amount sent and received. it doesn't say it owns any nfts or anything like that. (actually i think some blockchain explorer is actually showing the nfts but that's another story.  )

Its not magic... there is no mystery or ambiguity in how it works. The rules are well defined and it wouldn't make any sense to change them.

it's outside of the bitcoin protocol. something someone layered on top of bitcoin. that's all. all an address owns is a balance.

[nutildah]

that's not apparent though if you're just browsing a blockchain explorer or you have your own full node and you're investigating that particular address. all you see is it's current balance, transaction history, total amount sent and received. it doesn't say it owns any nfts or anything like that. (actually i think some blockchain explorer is actually showing the nfts but that's another story.  )

It doesn't need to be apparent enough for every block explorer. The idea is still very new, supporting infrastructure (such as a dedicated explorer) is being built as we speak. Blockchain.com does show the image/audio/video in the inscription transaction right now, but not the ownership history:

https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/b7a5cffd28b6c2db37880ac0321b18b4985c2ae4d75584a264d1334320ef532f

it's outside of the bitcoin protocol. something someone layered on top of bitcoin. that's all. all an address owns is a balance.

Precisely. Nobody (who understands how it works) ever claimed differently. However, each Ordinals transaction is a Bitcoin transaction. Counterparty works in a very similar way in that it requires a special explorer to view token balances.

[franky1]

yes "according to a special explorer"
this is chain analysis of taint
not proof of ownership in tx via references in tx


its not about actual data in a child or grandchild tx that protects the ownership in the latest owners purchase

caseys protocol can change which output taint to follow.. after the fact (swap output0 for output 1)

do you get that!!

because as you admit the ownership transfer is not referenced in the blockchain of actual data
caseys system uses (to use the buzzwords of that group) only a proof of publication via bitcoin, not proof of payment via bitcoin


so again its not a bitcoin NFT system because there is no timestamp system of blockchain to protect the transfer and make a reference locked per transfer of ownership, that cant be changed after the fact


due to no reference per transfer mentioned in said transfer tx. there is no proof of ownership
do you understand PROOFS??

casey can change who owns it in caseys 'special' explorer after the fact
because caseys protocol is not even about using block data for transfer proofs.. just meme library creation followed by idiots receiving a amount of sats but on another market paying more for said sats then the sat amount

he can change his protocol without breaking anything bitcoin related. but where he simply changes his chain analysis (explorer) to follow a different path after the fact..
meaning there is no immutable /locked/strong proof of ownership

do you get it yet

and no its not like counterparty
because counterparty actually uses (opreturn)outputs to put extra data references into transfer tx's thus its actually reading blockdata to link ownerships


where by casey does not. casey just assumes connections by (deciding off the blockchain) to follow a certain path he chooses and can change. a path thats not referenced in blockdata or opreturns to prove the path/lock the path

[nutildah]

"It doesn't work the way it works, it works how I say it works, which is why it doesn't work!!!!" - the essence of your every argument.

and no its not like counterparty
because counterparty actually uses (opreturn)outputs to put extra data references into transfer tx's thus its actually reading blockdata to link ownerships

They are both protocols that use a special set of rules to govern transactions. The difference is the block data isn't encoded in Ordinals as it doesn't have to be, because its actually a much simpler system. And coins aren't being transferred in Counterparty token transfers, that's the main difference.

where by casey does not. casey just assumes connections by (deciding off the blockchain) to follow a certain path he chooses and can change. a path thats not referenced in blockdata or opreturns to prove the path/lock the path

Learn Ordinals theory. Research and understand, then respond.

https://docs.ordinals.com/overview.html

He could make a new protocol that uses other rules but everybody else who is the slightest bit financially invested in the old system will continue using that one. It also happens to make a lot of sense the way that it currently is.

Really, "What if Casey changes the rules??" is pretty weakass fud. Surely you can do better than that, or the whole "I dictate the way its supposed to work" thing.

There's honestly nothing left to discuss here with you, which is why any future response I give to you will be in the style of you.

[franky1]

caseys RULES are not locked to hard data
its just code he wrote which he can change

its not dependant on hard data to prove the rule

do you get that??
by not having data that aligns/fixes to rules means the rules are not fixed to data

..
you really need to do some research on the stuff the cypherpunks were doing before bitcoin and why they kept hitting a developmental wall where by their digital money/digital property concepts didnt work .. until blockchains came about

you need to understand about proofs. yep, proofs stored in data to prove transfer and prove ownership

caseys project does not transfer proofs in blockchain data. no references transfer in hard data

if you dont have hard data proof of possession. you have no possession
#NotYourProofNotYourProperty

[ABCbits]

ok then pooya
seeing as many have tried to propose fixes for ordinal bloat and got no where

Have you got a example of this because if the proposed fixes bring more problems then fixes then I can see why they get rejected

If this had actually happened he would have filled bitcointalk about it instead of spreading misinformation with vague claims. As I pointed out above even if a PR is removed from BIPs repository it can not and will not be removed from the original repository of the person creating the PR.

I also barely found anything which could be count as "fix" towards Ordinal spam. Recently closed PR is either spam[1], duplicate[2], rejected modification[3] or self-closed without any response[4]. And it looks like GitHub doesn't let you delete PR, unless on very specific condition[5]. Even on bitcoin-dev mailing, there's only debate[6] rather than proposal.

[1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1409
[2] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1426
[3] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1297
[4] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1419
[5] https://stackoverflow.com/a/18318431
[6] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-February/021387.html

[franky1]

pooya has yet to understand one basic concept

its not a simple "anyone can write a bip"

he thinks all proposal drafts, idea's and requests are in some repo

he forgets to read the guidelines(dev rules)
where people who want to make a proposal first have to go through a hurdle of other platform moderation phases of scrutiny by the core devs before they will suggest you should then send them a BIP draft to the github to add to the list. where again even in tht final stage it may never show up as a bip in the list due to another level of moderation

pooya thinks all idea's are in bips list and then removed .. nope that not how the core devs have walled off the bips
its not a add first, ask for forgiveness after
its a plead for acceptance first, plead second, plead third. then maybe added. then maybe removed

the reason there is such a lack of github comment/code/bip about a ordinal spam fix in bitcoin github. is because its all been moderated out at the other levels far before even getting a chance for it to be added

[Hispo]

Let us assume that some unsavory character decided to mint a lot of illegal pictures through the ordinals and paid a premium fee to make their transactions go through as quick as possible.
That means most of node operators would end up having those illegal information in their SSD, right?
would not that imply node operators could get arrested in their countries/state?

This idea rather turning into a good excuse for regulators and the enemies of Bitcoin to call for node banning...
Perhaps I am exaggerating, but knowing how politics works nowadays, I would not be surprised to see a proposal of Bill in the congress of the United States about Bitcoin node banning, claiming storage of unlawful material, as soon as more people of power start to get aware of this possibility.

[DooMAD]

caseys RULES are not locked to hard data
its just code he wrote which he can change

its not dependant on hard data to prove the rule

do you get that??

OMFG.

No one cares.  Do you get that?

What exactly are you hoping to achieve by constantly repeating this?  You must have some sort of goal in mind, but for the life of me I can't figure out what it's supposed to be.  I'm pretty sure no one reading this topic gives a toss.  Is the hope that someone might read it and suddenly decide to stop putting Inscriptions in?  What's the end game here?  Are you just looking for validation?  Is it vitally important to you that everyone accepts your moronic definitions for every last fucking thing?  Or are you just so desperate for attention that you're being contrary for the sake of being contrary?  What do you want?  Please tell us the grand franky1 plan, because we're all completely in the dark as to what the fuck you're trying to accomplish here.  As per usual.

[franky1]

point is
instead of idiots like you promoting, idolising and loving this crap for greed

people need to be informed that they might be buying this crap.. they should be informed that if they are interested in this crap, they are buying nothing at all thus wasting their funds on buying nothing that is proven as proof of possession

so yes its to make people not want to spend value on wasted faked crap. thus yes cause the demand to decrease

because at the moment too many idiots like you and nutty think that this meme crap has value

they(YOU and your buddies) need to realise these meme crap things are not:
proof of possession
or
proof of transfer
it is simply
proof of publish  (just treating bitcoin as a file storage system of dead weight)

..
heck there are ways to actually create a proof of transfer method. using a technique as old as legacy's multisig but you lot are so dumb to realise what you love right now about ordinals isnt actually a NFT system. there is no point in me saying how you lot could make it into a proof or transfer and proof of possession system to have a NFT system.
and yea i know you lot dont know how to make it work.. else you would have implemented it in the first place, so yea i want to leave you idiots in the dark in regards to how to make your crap workable. and instead inform innocent victims not like you.. to not get involved in this crap. and them not lose value by not getting involved

[DooMAD]

people need to be informed that they might be buying this crap.. they should be informed that if they are interested in this crap, they are buying nothing at all thus wasting their funds on buying nothing that is proven as proof of possession

Then kindly go find some novelty-picture-brigade idiots who might buy this crap and be an obnoxious, relentless fuckwit in their vicinity, please.  I think it's safe to say that most, if not all, of the participants in this topic know it's worthless crap.  You don't need to keep picking fights with those who already understand it's garbage.  All you're doing is pissing people off.  Again, as usual.  

Maybe you do have good intentions, but I am honestly and truly unable to tell, because the only impression I'm left with is how unbelievably overbearing and pompous you are.  If all you want to do is alienate people, keep up the good work.  You're doing great.  

But if you really want to do some good and have a real impact, focus your supposed research skills into correctly identifying the people who buy and sell this shit and go make your case to them.

a) a SegWit-and-Taproot-Compatible node
b) a SegWit node that doesn't support Taproot
c) a node that supports neither SegWit nor Taproot

Can you be a bit more specific about what version does what? a is obviously the latest, how about b? is c v12?

I'd imagine anything around 0.20.1 would get you to "b)".  I'm not sure if anyone would perceive your choice to run it as a direct protest to Ordinals, though, if that's what you were aiming for.

 

[franky1]

nutildah loves it and thinks its a real NFT that has value and is trying his hardest to say it is real with his silly
"read casey, look at casey, trust casey" crap

and then you love this crap because you dont want this crap stopped (not have continual inclusion in the network) because you have been crying "censorship" alot in any topic that mentions stopping it

[larry_vw_1955]

It doesn't need to be apparent enough for every block explorer. The idea is still very new, supporting infrastructure (such as a dedicated explorer) is being built as we speak. Blockchain.com does show the image/audio/video in the inscription transaction right now, but not the ownership history:

https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/b7a5cffd28b6c2db37880ac0321b18b4985c2ae4d75584a264d1334320ef532f

but when is it going to become part of bitcoin core?  

Precisely. Nobody (who understands how it works) ever claimed differently. However, each Ordinals transaction is a Bitcoin transaction. Counterparty works in a very similar way in that it requires a special explorer to view token balances.

yeah but if an alien race came down to earth and looked at raw blockchain they wouldn't know who owned what unless they could get a copy of casey's github code.

caseys project does not transfer proofs in blockchain data. no references transfer in hard data

if you dont have hard data proof of possession. you have no possession

this is a very valid point. what you are saying franky is something that no one else is but that doesn't make it any less true. it actually is true. whether that bothers nft people or not i guess that's up to them but i guess some of them doesn't even realize about this issue. i call it an issue but you can call it whatever you want to...

Let us assume that some unsavory character decided to mint a lot of illegal pictures through the ordinals and paid a premium fee to make their transactions go through as quick as possible.

why just pictures though? what if someone uploads instructions about how to make a bomb? there's all kind of bad things people could upload that are illegal. how about top secret classified documents of a government? none of that can be stopped though. and what's with the premium fee? they just pay the normal fee like everyone else. illegal stuff doesn't cost more to upload  

That means most of node operators would end up having those illegal information in their SSD, right?

maybe.

would not that imply node operators could get arrested in their countries/state?

possibly. each country can make their own rules about this type of thing.

This idea rather turning into a good excuse for regulators and the enemies of Bitcoin to call for node banning...
Perhaps I am exaggerating, but knowing how politics works nowadays, I would not be surprised to see a proposal of Bill in the congress of the United States about Bitcoin node banning, claiming storage of unlawful material, as soon as more people of power start to get aware of this possibility.

well yeah i mean if ordinals got out of hand and alot of illegal stuff started appearing on it then yeah i mean the usa government might do something like that but i don't think bitcoin has really been attacked by people doing that yet. probably at some point it will be. but we don't know that for sure.

[nutildah]

caseys project does not transfer proofs in blockchain data. no references transfer in hard data

if you dont have hard data proof of possession. you have no possession

this is a very valid point. what you are saying franky is something that no one else is but that doesn't make it any less true. it actually is true.

Yeah but its not tho. All the proof required for the system to function is in the transaction. Its not a matter of opinion so much as understanding. Hundreds of these things are being bought, sold and moved around every day and nobody is the least bit bothered by what you and franky perceive to be show-stoppers. And unlike you and franky they are backing their actions and beliefs with money.

You can hold the opinion that its all meaningless, and that's fine, but I have yet to see the purpose of working so hard to live in a constant state of confusion.

[larry_vw_1955]

Yeah but its not tho. All the proof required for the system to function is in the transaction.

yeah but it's not in bitcoin core. and it requires an "add-on" to function. whether that is acceptable or not i guess is up to each individual person. i'm not telling anyone how to decide that though.

Its not a matter of opinion so much as understanding. Hundreds of these things are being bought, sold and moved around every day and nobody is the least bit bothered by what you and franky perceive to be show-stoppers.

i'm not saying it is a show-stopper but let's just be honest about how it works. it's not in bitcoin core and it's just an "add-on" outside of bitcoin core. something that people are agreeing on how this add on is supposed to function. as long as nothing better comes along then maybe it will become the de-facto standard for how bitcoin nfts work. seems like it already has. i can't change that.

And unlike you and franky they are backing their actions and beliefs with money.

right. so i can't say anything to people that are supporting the platform by participating in it. they can do so and money talks

You can hold the opinion that its all meaningless, and that's fine, but I have yet to see the purpose of working so hard to live in a constant state of confusion.

i didn't say it was meaningless. clearly that's not the case as people are using it but it may not be ideal. that's all. and as well, some people are objecting to using the blockchain as a decentralized file storage medium. i don't think bitcoin can survive something like that look at filecoin. people have to pay just for temporary data storage. there is no "lifetime" option. guess why not?

so forget about ever increasing the blocksize because it would just be bloated up by more nfts. up to the max. another bitcoin cash in the making then.

[franky1]

bitcoin is not just about X people agree on a taint trail

its that bitcoin blockchain data PROVES the taint trail by actually including stuff in a tx using reference per taint of the value moving

the memes dont move
a reference of the meme does not move

there is no proof of transfer. its just lame human agreement of transfer
a problem the cypherpunks had before bitcoin came along

yes they  can agree value transfered but none of the cypherpunks pre2009 came up with a system that showed a reference item move in data format that could not be edited/changed later

its also a problem why non blockchain "smart contract" subnetworks dont pass certain tests of pre bitcoin solving "digital money" isssues. the lack of proof of transfer that cant be edited/revoked/rejected

i still find it funny how nutildah does not know basic bitcoin stuff.. after soo many years in the community
even funnier is how passionate and argumentative he gets about wanting this meme crap dead weight to continue and be scam sold to victims. even though he pretends he never had owned any

my reason for trying to show the scam is that if it was fiat company trying to sell penny shares to victims where its later found out the victims never actually owned the shares. that company should be stopped as they are scamming people

and ontop of that bitcoin is not suppose to be a meme library of dead weight
its suppose to be a proof of payment system of sats

and as for ordinals v1 (the special sats/rare sats)
again nothing in a tx data actually displays that 1sat is more important than another sat
its again something only made up in GUI expression and human conversation

[pooya87]

caseys RULES are not locked to hard data
its just code he wrote which he can change

nutildah loves it and thinks its a real NFT that has value and is trying his hardest to say it is real with his silly
"read casey, look at casey, trust casey" crap

I hate to agree with franky but he is right. There are people in this topic and elsewhere that for different reasons refuse to acknowledge the scam nature of this whole thing. Ordinals is not part of or enforced by bitcoin consensus rules or any other consensus rules, it is basically an illusion created and controlled by a centralized authority and is sold to people who are unknowingly attacking bitcoin.

[franky1]

dont worry pooya. you dont need to agree with me. im not looking for ass kissers(unlike other scammy people trying to recruit ass kissers into schemes)

people just need to learn for themselves by actually looking outside the "just read casey, just trust casey" adverts.. and actually for themselves look at bitcoin data and code and realise for themselves whats actually happening.