On Ordinals: Where do you stand?

[pooya87]

rest in peace people who run nodes from home if this takes off. i heard it will use 250GB per year luckily seagate's got you covered.

They can't spam the chain more than the block weight limit allows, so the total blockchain size in the end won't be that different with or without this spam. Not to mention that the fee market will kick in if this gets worse and they try to abuse the system and fill the blocks more with spam.

[1714490710]

1714490710

[1714490710]

1714490710

[1714490710]

1714490710

[1714490710]

1714490710

[1714490710]

1714490710

[1714490710]

1714490710

[franky1]

average block was 1.3mb with ~2000 tx

now there are some pushing over 2mb with no extra tx count to associate with that 0.7+ extra bloat


https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/775113
2.6mb - 753 tx

[ABCbits]

rest in peace people who run nodes from home if this takes off. i heard it will use 250GB per year luckily seagate's got you covered.

The number is slightly off. Even assuming each block has exactly 4.000.000 bytes (maximum possible size in theory) it's only equal to 210.24GB. It'll have much bigger impact towards people who want to run node for first time (which means download whole blockchain) rather than those who already run synced node.

Code:

4000000 bytes * 144 (total blocks/day) * 365 (total day/year) = 210240000000 bytes (210.24GB)

[franky1]

rest in peace people who run nodes from home if this takes off. i heard it will use 250GB per year luckily seagate's got you covered.

The number is slightly off. Even assuming each block has exactly 4.000.000 bytes (maximum possible size in theory) it's only equal to 210.24GB. It'll have much bigger impact towards people who want to run node for first time (which means download whole blockchain) rather than those who already run synced node.

Code:

4000000 bytes * 144 (total blocks/day) * 365 (total day/year) = 210240000000 bytes (210.24GB)

you are correct about the mass being ~210gb

however the impact is actually
if there are say 10 image blocking up ~3.5mb of a blockspace. leaving the other transactions to try to squeeze into the (leaving only 0.125mb of the base tx data wall for legacy or 0.5 for segwit native transactions to fill)
meaning less transactions per block

note block
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/775085
3.8mb but only 149 tx

[franky1]

That's true people who make transaction would be more impacted. I was focusing about impact among those who run a node.

the data size in regards to PC hardware is not a concern. its not like it causes more signature checks and verification functions. its just DEAD WEIGHT
the issue is more about it being wasted DEAD WEIGHT.. (data thats not payments)

EG
instead of blocks being ~2000tx at 1.3mb per ~10min
instead of blocks being ~6000tx at 4mb per ~10min
its instead examples like ones given above where only 139tx payments got added(+10 dead weight)
meaning there is atleast 1860 payments that didnt, thus can cause a node unconfirmed mempool increase in its listing of un-confirmed tx. (thus everyone "paying more" to outbid the spam deadweight)

oh and if the spammers are ruthless.. can fill the 300mb mempool with 1,000,000 memes pending.. and have no genuine payment tx pending

[Gabrics]

I think it will be interesting to see who will actually pay for this in the long run.

I mean let's say an average bitcoin transaction size is half kilobytes. That means that a 1MB jpeg equals to ~ 2000 transactions.

Now if you accept to pay $2/monetary transaction that means including one JPEG is $4,000.

Also I believe large pools should/will(?)/can enforce minimum transaction cost / KB, making large transactions exponentially even more expensive.

So to me as of today this seems to be a bit over-hyped.

[larry_vw_1955]

They can't spam the chain more than the block weight limit allows, so the total blockchain size in the end won't be that different with or without this spam.

right. no one is arguing that.

Not to mention that the fee market will kick in if this gets worse and they try to abuse the system and fill the blocks more with spam.

the problem with that is the fees will go up for everyone not just for the abusers, right? does anyone here want bitcoin fees to go up? 

[nullama]

I think it will be interesting to see who will actually pay for this in the long run.

I mean let's say an average bitcoin transaction size is half kilobytes. That means that a 1MB jpeg equals to ~ 2000 transactions.

Now if you accept to pay $2/monetary transaction that means including one JPEG is $4,000.

Also I believe large pools should/will(?)/can enforce minimum transaction cost / KB, making large transactions exponentially even more expensive.

So to me as of today this seems to be a bit over-hyped.

There are already heaps of images stored in the blockchain. This is not something new.

This whole phenomena will probably die out in a couple of months/years, just like every other controversial thing surrounding Bitcoin

[NotATether]

rest in peace people who run nodes from home if this takes off. i heard it will use 250GB per year luckily seagate's got you covered.

They can't spam the chain more than the block weight limit allows, so the total blockchain size in the end won't be that different with or without this spam. Not to mention that the fee market will kick in if this gets worse and they try to abuse the system and fill the blocks more with spam.

Not to mention all those fees they'll be paying to compete with megabytes of normal transactions.

As long as miners follow greedy profit theory and only mine the transactions that will net them the most fees, then the mining of ordinals will be largely restricted to one or two miners who specifically look for ordinals, so there isn't much to worry about.

[larry_vw_1955]

Not to mention all those fees they'll be paying to compete with megabytes of normal transactions.

so exactly how much does it cost someone to store one of their NFTs using ordinals? haven't heard too much about that. but if we're talking about $40 or $50 that's really nothing. nothing compared to what people have paid for doing nft transactions using eth.

[franky1]

so exactly how much does it cost someone to store one of their NFTs using ordinals?

at a near 4mb ordinal is near 4,000,000 bytes
so a min of 1sat per byte = 0.04btc which is under $1k

however they can just throw in any sat amount because of silly things like "freemarket" and unenforced fee rate formulaes and also sat per KB is allowed measure too so it can be under $1 too as a byte per ksat

its funny how certain people say "freemarket" want everyone else to pay more while also shouting "freemarket" let spammer pay any small amount they like

end goal is certain people dont want consensus or rules (code) to control a network. they want bitcoin to be lawless and expensive

its all about promoting everyone else moves to subnetworks/altcoins and make bitcoin hated and useless as a payment network

corporations cant get money out of a true peer to peer network of self custody. they only make money from people using middlemen networks/service. and thats where the want people transacting

[Wind_FURY]

Honestly, I am very impartial on which one's making sense and who's right. On one hand, Ordinals and their supporters have a point. At this point in time there's no use appealing to what Satoshi would've wanted for bitcoin. The project is bigger than him now and is already self-serving, so I don't think any of his opinions matter at this point. On the other, I can see this causing problems in the long run, they won't be the last project that's going to run in the bitcoin blockchain, thus this may cause issues down the line in the matters of transaction processes.

Purists do not have a say in this. They are clowns at most.

Your debate is for censorship-resistance. That's very understandable. The day the miners censor anything from being included in the blockchain, or are coerced to censor, will be the day Bitcoin failed. BUT calling purists, clowns? That's a little unfair, because the purists' concerns if Ordinals will be a success are about, blockchain bloat, possbility of constant high fees, and Sats lose fungibility. It can be used as an attack vector as well. Those concerns shouldbe YOUR concern too as a user. Plus Bitcoin users who doesn't know the meaning of RBF will definitely know the meaning of RBF.

[DooMAD]

the problem with that is the fees will go up for everyone not just for the abusers, right? does anyone here want bitcoin fees to go up? 

If the choice is between 'temporarily higher fees' and 'forever abandoning permissionless freedom', yes, I'd personally take the higher fees.  For many early adopters, the permissionless nature of Bitcoin is a significant part of the value proposition.  Tread carefully before you join the side of those who would embrace totalitarianism.

[Artemis3]

I don't think its about censorship, but some of the suggestions made by franky1 make sense, stricter rules to ensure its bitcoin transactions and not bloat. This needs to be done before its too late...

Sure miners might enjoy the high fees, or even those interested in promoting parallel blockchains... Unfortunately this comes to the expense of nodes and actual bitcoin transactions.

Note that already half of the network is being polluted with this bloat. Now its a race of pushing down the transactions not belonging to whales. High priced NFTs are willing to pay the high fees a mundane transaction wouldn't. Who benefits more from this sabotage to Bitcoin?

[franky1]

"permissionless freedom"

says the guy that hates the idea of increasing the blocksize to allow more lean transactions

says the guy that hates the idea of bitcoin being used as intended as a peer to peer PAYMENT NETWORK. and instead wants people to make payments elsewhere and use blockspace not for coffee/wage payments. but for memes

says the guy that hates the idea of low fees to allow more people of the world to afford to use the bitcoin network

says the guy that shouts out if you dont like cores plan, should fork off to an altcoin and go away

doomad wants CORE to have the freedoms to do as they please.. not the bitcoin users
doomad hates the idea of consensus

he does not want equal decentralised users that unite by common agreement
(byzantine generals solution aka consensus)

doomad love core'poral leader control where anyone not in core who opposes core should be thrown off the network

by the way.. when a pool adds a meme into its own blocktemplate. the fee becomes meaningless.. because (take some time to let this settle into your minds)

the sats it destroys in the meme tx... get rewarded back to itself the coinbase. thus no cost no loss..

fees are not the solution.
and pools dont care about fees (thats why pools do empty blocks aswell)

[DooMAD]

"permissionless freedom"

says the guy that hates the idea of increasing the blocksize to allow more lean transactions

If and when node operators want to bear that cost, it'll happen.  Not when you screech and whine about it.  It's not your place to tell others what burden they "should" accept in order to run a node.  
People will decide that for themselves, because freedom.

says the guy that hates the idea of low fees to allow more people of the world to afford to use the bitcoin network

I don't hate the idea of low fees.  I hate the idea of artificially manipulating market forces to achieve your desired outcome.  I hate you thinking you get to arbitrarily decide what fees others "should" pay.  
People will decide that for themselves, because freedom.

says the guy that shouts out if you dont like cores plan, should fork off to an altcoin and go away

If you want to implement something which is incompatible with what the majority of users want, it's your best option.  Screeching and crying about it doesn't make me wrong.

doomad wants CORE to have the freedoms to do as they please..

ALL devs.  Not just Core ones.  

You are the one who wants to maintain the absurd position that Core devs hold all the power.  It's the people who run the code who have the power.  If Core do something those users don't like, they won't run it.  Although I'm starting to think maybe you do run Bitcoin Core, even though you claim to disagree with it.  Is that where all your anger stems from?  Are you some sort of masochist who runs code they overtly despise?

doomad hates the idea of consensus

I hate your twisted, moronic, demented fantasy of what consensus "should" be.  Every time you repeat your "tRuE cOnSeNsUs" catchphrase (like the braindead parrot you are), I read it as "bullshit nonsense franky1 totalitarian pipe-dream".  You don't understand consensus and wish to utterly pervert its meaning.  Feel free to have your own ridiculous definitions of words, but don't expect the rest of us to abide by them.

[larry_vw_1955]

at a near 4mb ordinal is near 4,000,000 bytes

i guess that's the largest possible size for an ordinal nft due to the blocksize constraint but that would mean no one else could do any transaction at all in that block. 

so a min of 1sat per byte = 0.04btc which is under $1k

then they could do it for 10 times less if their nft was only 400 kilobytes which is probably doable for most nft images. so maybe $100 to mint an nft to bitcoin. but i agree with you franky it's not good for the ecosystem to be raising transaction fees. just look at what happened to ethereum. fees got out of control and it become unusable for people. for doing just daily transactions.

dont want consensus or rules (code) to control a network. they want bitcoin to be lawless and expensive

if someone wants bitcoin to be expensive then i don't want to use bitcoin. 

its all about promoting everyone else moves to subnetworks/altcoins and make bitcoin hated and useless as a payment network

it will be useless if people just stuff it full of nfts and squeeze out people wanting to pay for coffee. but need to pay $20 transaction fee to get it confirmed.

corporations cant get money out of a true peer to peer network of self custody. they only make money from people using middlemen networks/service. and thats where the want people transacting

that's not where i want to be transacting because then its not decentralized anymore. i have to depend on the company to not close my account. it's not a good feeling when a company is telling you you can't send your own money because they have some arbitrary rules about proof you need to show them of things and until you do that, you won't use their service. thats what corporations do though.

[Wind_FURY]

"permissionless freedom"

says the guy that hates the idea of increasing the blocksize to allow more lean transactions

If and when node operators want to bear that cost, it'll happen.  Not when you screech and whine about it.  It's not your place to tell others what burden they "should" accept in order to run a node. 
People will decide that for themselves, because freedom.

says the guy that hates the idea of low fees to allow more people of the world to afford to use the bitcoin network

I don't hate the idea of low fees.  I hate the idea of artificially manipulating market forces to achieve your desired outcome.  I hate you thinking you get to arbitrarily decide what fees others "should" pay. 
People will decide that for themselves, because freedom.

says the guy that shouts out if you dont like cores plan, should fork off to an altcoin and go away

If you want to implement something which is incompatible with what the majority of users want, it's your best option.  Screeching and crying about it doesn't make me wrong.

doomad wants CORE to have the freedoms to do as they please..

ALL devs.  Not just Core ones. 

You are the one who wants to maintain the absurd position that Core devs hold all the power.  It's the people who run the code who have the power.  If Core do something those users don't like, they won't run it.  Although I'm starting to think maybe you do run Bitcoin Core, even though you claim to disagree with it.  Is that where all your anger stems from?  Are you some sort of masochist who runs code they overtly despise?

doomad hates the idea of consensus

I hate your twisted, moronic, demented fantasy of what consensus "should" be.  Every time you repeat your "tRuE cOnSeNsUs" catchphrase (like the braindead parrot you are), I read it as "bullshit nonsense franky1 totalitarian pipe-dream".  You don't understand consensus and wish to utterly pervert its meaning.  Feel free to have your own ridiculous definitions of words, but don't expect the rest of us to abide by them.

The nerve of the troll. He merely changes his narrative to gaslight everyone, and when someone points out what he's doing, he tells you that you're starting Social Drama. That's = franky-101 for everyone. There are some newbies who are starting to debate for him, then saying that his viewpoint is merely different from the majority. There will just be some users who learned the hard way.

But let's not go off-topic like what the troll wants to do.

Someone built a site that everyone can use to inscribe without running their own node, https://ordinalsbot.com/

The blockchain will be full of dick pics by the next halving.

[pooya87]

• OP_RETURN size more than 80 bytes are rejected as non-standard --> bitcoin is permissionless
• More than one OP_RETURN is rejected as non-standard --> bitcoin is permissionless
• pubscript that isn't P2PKH,P2SH,P2WPKH,P2WSH,P2TR are rejected as non-standard --> bitcoin is permissionless
• scriptsig containing extra items (ie garbage) pushed to the stack is rejected as non-standard -- > bitcoin is permissionless
• for years if the OP_CHECKMULTISIG(VERIFY) dummy item were garbage data other than OP_0 the transaction would have been rejected as non-standard --> bitcoin is permissionless
• OP_(NOT)IF conditional not being OP_0/OP_1 and if garbage data were injected instead the tx would have been rejected as non-standard --> bitcoin is permissionless
• Tx with script containing OP_NOPs is rejected as non-standard --> bitcoin is permissionless
• Tx containing OP_SUCCESS, different witness program, Taproot version, etc. rejected as non-standard --> bitcoin is permissionless
• complicated redeem scripts with bigger sizes (eg. containing a bunch of conditionals) is rejected --> bitcoin is permissionless
• ...

if we decide to reject Taproot witness containing garbage --> bitcoin's permissionlessness is at risk!!!!!!!!

What kind of logic is that?

[franky1]

certain formats have,,,,,,,,, FORMATS
its those FORMATS that should be verified that they fit their FORMATS

remember the promise "taproot witnesses will be lean and appear like 1 signature length"

so where is this promise now?
nowhere because idiots like doomad, pooya, windfury and their other few buddies you usually see repeating doomads narrative like a cult..  want bitcoin not to verify that data fits the rules which data should be following

they dont want bitcoin to have rules
they think bitcoin should have no rules

they do not understand what consensus was before it was softened in 2017

consensus is nodes uniting via consent of mass survey of following a set of rules
it worked from 2009-2016 where it required nodes to upgrade to contain new rulesets that it would follow before allowing the new rules set formats be allowed to activate..
this meant the nodes would be ready to fully verify everything
since mid 2017 consensus has softened to allow rules to be broke and things accepted as default isvalid without fitting a ruleset format/function

thre is reasons why sipa and luke jr (the two main guys that softened consensus for new formats post 2017) still leave their value on pre 2017 formats.
yep both use legacy even though they want everyone else to use segwit and taproot

i too am sticking with legacy formats..

the idiots above want all the rules to be broken
including the rule about max supply of shareable units
they love even having nodes not store the blockchain(pruning)
where by the blockchain is less distributed(decentralised)

they dont want alternative brands on the network offering their own fixes, proposals, solutions. they love REKT campaigns and treating anything not following the core roadmap(of breaking the rules and softened consensus), as opposition nodes that need to be thrown off the network if they try to oppose cores bugs, flaws and bad features that break the concept of consensus of the rules

as for doomads economics lessons..
he wants people to not use a node that enforces a consensus of hard rulesets (that verify transactions fit their formats and rules). he wants people to instead let dead data without rules to be allowed to sit on the blockchain and then artificially inflate the fee's to dis-advantage said dead weight transactions...

thus he wants to artificially make the fee market a political system of controlling what transactions get through.. which in basic terms is getting everyone to pay more to stop the dead weight.
however his preferences of using the fee market as politics fails
becasue by allowing dead weight. means mining pools can throw in the dead weight unchallenged by nodes.

where by the pools adding dead weight to their unchallenged blocktemplate. whatever fee the pool adds for their dead weight goes back to them in coin reward

thus a xbtc fee in a deadweight tx they produce, becomes Xbtc in a blockreward they produce = no funds actually change ownership,

thus no cost to actually add the dead weight = other users cannot compete no matter how much a outsider transaction offers