On Ordinals: Where do you stand?

[nutildah]

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

Who cares? Its on a different blockchain. I don't need to spell it out for those who don't have an exceptionally dull axe to grind, but you know full well that nobody can create an old timestamp on Ethereum. Nobody can replicate a transaction that minted a Bored Ape from the original Bored Ape contract.

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

Again, that's not an ordinal. Its a Counterparty token. Do better research.

[1713987537]

1713987537

[1713987537]

1713987537

[fillippone]

Hello, I am just landing on this thread.
I am interested in the ordinal protocol, not for the jpg, but for the notarization function and maybe other interesting features it might enable.

I think the ordinal protocol should be somehow moved to upper levels on the blockchain layers; ideally, it should be moved to the L2 and integrated into the Taro protocol, as the base layer space will soon be a too scarce resource to be used for this.

My question is: is there any solution o the "double spend" by the inscription write?
If I buy a "bored ape", is there a way to prevent the issuer from minting 1,000 of such inscriptions and defrauding the buyer? Each of them could have some invisible change to trick any SHA256 checks on those.

On a more serious note: any notarization effort with the Ordinal protocol can only certify the existence of certain documents in a given moment and certify the possession of that document. It cannot assess the validity of such a document or the existence of any other version of it. (I am thinking of using the possession of a certain sat as a digital representation of the possession of something in the real world, such as a car or a house).

[n0nce]

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").

You cannot duplicate the contract, but you can absolutely duplicate the file. That's the piece NFT fans are usually missing. NFTs do not make it impossible to duplicate the file; only the ownership contract (if it is even legally recognized as such).
If you buy a piece of physical art, you can't duplicate the contract, nor the physical art piece. While you can counterfeit the contract, it can be verified (been done like that since forever) and it is worthless if you don't have physical access to the object. Therefore, I'd say it is more important to have sole access to your thing, even though the ownership proof is not in some blockchain, than having an NFT contract, while everyone can 1:1 copy the thing.
This is just to show that your comparison / example with real art is not correct and that NFTs are not really needed to protect your ownership rights.

They might make sense as a type of digital contract that can automatically be submitted to a supported webpage whenever someone stole your content. This would allow them to automatically take it down without having to go through a lengthy human process.
However, even this scenario would have limited utility. Since there are 'fair use' policies in place, it is possible that someone will still need to look at the complaints, unless it is a 1:1 copy.

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.

What if I don't care about ownership and I just want the picture? I will never be able have the real Mona Lisa in my home, but I can definitely have the real (i.e. 1:1 copied, pure pristine file without any differences) BoredApe#1 as my desktop background. Sure; I don't have a little label that says I'm the official owner, but who cares about that?

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

Would you still claim this?

[franky1]

you dont need to duplicate "contracts"

you simply need to show a plausible timestamp of claim of ownership of an image pre dates yours.

which can easily be forged by premining a new blockchain that contains an image in a block that appears to have existed years ago

but hey enjoy trying you fight your right in court

emphasis no need to try modifying your contract.. just create a new contract signed before yours. that then nullifies your contract in court

[OgNasty]

My question is: is there any solution o the "double spend" by the inscription write?
If I buy a "bored ape", is there a way to prevent the issuer from minting 1,000 of such inscriptions and defrauding the buyer? Each of them could have some invisible change to trick any SHA256 checks on those.

In short, no.  However, you can use the blockchain to see which was inscribed first.  This seems to be the way that NFTs are valued.  For example, there's nothing stopping me from copying the entire Bored Ape Yacht Club NFT collection and reissuing it on the same chain.  It would actually be extremely easy to do and not take much time.  The NFTs could contain the exact same links and the images would be literally the exact same images.  However, would they still be Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs?  No.  So my assumption is that the blockchain would work the same way.  Your point is a good one though that the marketplaces should figure out.  I'd imagine some sort of search of the blockchain to make sure the metadata doesn't already exist on chain when the items are put up for sale would be a good feature to have.

[Macadonian]

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.

I am with @franky1 on this. If a timestamp is created on another blockchain that is not considered the main blockchain how is this not a forged timestamp? If it is not then what stops people from creating unlimited blockchains and creating the same timestamp to attack the credibility of original blockchains.

[pooya87]

On a more serious note: any notarization effort with the Ordinal protocol can only certify the existence of certain documents in a given moment and certify the possession of that document. It cannot assess the validity of such a document or the existence of any other version of it. (I am thinking of using the possession of a certain sat as a digital representation of the possession of something in the real world, such as a car or a house).

There is no reason to use Ordinals attack to do something like that. In Ordinals you will have to first create a new Taproot address created from the script containing the "document" then send some coins to that address (1st tx). Then you'll have to spend those coins so that you reveal the script and the document inside it on the blockchain in another transaction (2nd tx).

You could already do that using OP_RETURN as it has been done before. All it takes is one transaction with an OP_RETURN output containing the information related to the documents proving possession of the thing in real world.

[nutildah]

I am with @franky1 on this. If a timestamp is created on another blockchain that is not considered the main blockchain how is this not a forged timestamp? If it is not then what stops people from creating unlimited blockchains and creating the same timestamp to attack the credibility of original blockchains.

because its just a timestamp, there's nothing "forged" about it. the forgery happens when attempting to recreate an NFT and pass it off as the original, which is gonna be pretty hard to do if you are using a different blockchain than the original uses.

what i was originally implying is that you cannot create old timestamps on any blockchain that anybody actually uses for anything. it can't be done because that feature is an inherent part of what gives cryptocurrency value. that's why it is un-forgeable.

franky was just looking for an "aha gotcha!" rather than have to concede, or heaven forbid learn, anything.

[fillippone]

On a more serious note: any notarization effort with the Ordinal protocol can only certify the existence of certain documents in a given moment and certify the possession of that document. It cannot assess the validity of such a document or the existence of any other version of it. (I am thinking of using the possession of a certain sat as a digital representation of the possession of something in the real world, such as a car or a house).

There is no reason to use Ordinals attack to do something like that. In Ordinals you will have to first create a new Taproot address created from the script containing the "document" then send some coins to that address (1st tx). Then you'll have to spend those coins so that you reveal the script and the document inside it on the blockchain in another transaction (2nd tx).

You could already do that using OP_RETURN as it has been done before. All it takes is one transaction with an OP_RETURN output containing the information related to the documents proving possession of the thing in real world.

If I am not wrong there are limits of data in each OP_RETURN with the need of splitting the data in multiple transactions.
Ordinals I think overcome this limitation in a more viable way.

Or you could just timestamp the hash of the document, but this implies you have to safely store the original document elsewhere (maybe on YouTube?)

[franky1]

nutildah its not about getting a gotcha

i have explained the flaw and holes that ordinals have. where they are not the same as NFT due to the hole/flaw in the ownership transfer weaknesses

you then started talking about ethereum purchases of contracts
you are side stepping and avoiding the obvious rather then learning

you are the one throwing out alot of "whataboutisms" to avoid conceding, by changing the arguments from ordinals to counterparty, to bitcoin to ethereum

so just accept that ordinals on bitcoin(this topic) does not show any real NFT utility of the meme dead weight due to not actually structurally and securely having a ownership claim system
(its a provenance system of receipts. not a ownership system of possession)
(where the taint/provenance can be broken in many ways)

i did try to teach you about some of your whataboutisms about general blockchain timestamps and your ethereum side track debates
but you narratives had faults in them too

sorry im not going to act like a blind sheep and just ass kiss and say your right when your wrong
but other readers prefer to see how things can work or what can go wrong. rather then read some nutters love story of having their ass kissed by blind sheep

have a nice day

[nutildah]

Meanwhile outside the bubble









Data kept by lukedashjr shows the Bitcoin node count is up 12.5% this year, the largest increase since Jan 2021. Wonder why that is...

[franky1]

as with most social drama queens that use other queens of social quotes as confirmation bias

yet using stats
feb 2023 node count as stated by nutildahs use of lukes stats
53k

yet 2018 had 200k
2019 had 105k
2021 had 95k
2022 had 52k

what you notice is that people ramp up their nodes when the bitcoin price is moving the most

ordinals have been around for a month but nodes only started moving by a small percentange this week now that price is peaking above 25k ..

it has nothing to do with ordinals. its market price provoked node usage where people are mving funds around to buy or sell coin

also
although there are more taproot utxo
there is not equal growth of btc per taproot utxo
https://txstats.com/dashboard/db/taproot-statistics?orgId=1

so ordinals are not actually making people want to hoard value in taproot utxo
instead they are just abusing taproot

oh.. and the increase of taproot utxo are not also correlating with increase of LN channel openings of said utxo so no its not helping populate LN either

anyway lets translate this post into a form nutildah only understands

nutildah doesnt want to mention the large % of leaps of past events but wants to be laser focused on  a small blip

[nutildah]

honored 

[larry_vw_1955]

on their github, casey got into a discussion about charging people to flag an ordinal as having inappropriate content. luckily he doesn't control the bitcoin blockchain because it sounds like he wants to try and make money off this flagging process...imagine that. snuffing peoples content out and at the same time collecting a fee to do so. that's in the spirit of bitcoin i tell ya!

heard litecoin has a ordinals now too. not sure where to view them though: https://cryptopotato.com/not-just-bitcoin-ordinals-are-now-on-litecoin/

[ABCbits]

--snip--

You could already do that using OP_RETURN as it has been done before. All it takes is one transaction with an OP_RETURN output containing the information related to the documents proving possession of the thing in real world.

If I am not wrong there are limits of data in each OP_RETURN with the need of splitting the data in multiple transactions.

--snip--

Correct, one transaction only allow single OP_RETURN with maximum size 80 bytes. If you want to store more data, you either need to create multiple transactions or create non-standard transaction (size higher than 80 bytes and/or multiple OP_RETURN) and ask miner/pool to include it manually.

Meanwhile outside the bubble

--snip--

Data kept by lukedashjr shows the Bitcoin node count is up 12.5% this year, the largest increase since Jan 2021. Wonder why that is...

One of the reasons would be ord software require you to run Bitcoin Core.

[fillippone]

--snip--

You could already do that using OP_RETURN as it has been done before. All it takes is one transaction with an OP_RETURN output containing the information related to the documents proving possession of the thing in real world.

If I am not wrong there are limits of data in each OP_RETURN with the need of splitting the data in multiple transactions.

--snip--

Correct, one transaction only allow single OP_RETURN with maximum size 80 bytes. If you want to store more data, you either need to create multiple transactions or create non-standard transaction (size higher than 80 bytes and/or multiple OP_RETURN) and ask miner/pool to include it manually.

Ordinals all to have an inscription tied to a single transaction. So it would be extremely practical ho have a whole document tied to a single satoshi.
I am thinking about more legitimate uses here, requiring the most thermodynamically secure blockchain. For sure not today's meme.

[larry_vw_1955]

seems like the inevitable end result of this is going to be people uploading their video "shorts" to bitcoin. 

[pooya87]

~

You are correct about the limit of OP_RETURN as @ETFbitcoin pointed out but you are forgetting that the examples you used (documents related to ownership of a car or a house, etc.) has centralization attached to it so you don't need to store the whole document on bitcoin blockchain, but only some sort of link to it like a serial number or document hash, etc. and OP_RETURN's 80 byte limit is more than enough for that purpose.

Here is an example of real world application. Land registry by the government of Georgia using bitcoin blockchain:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2017/02/07/the-first-government-to-secure-land-titles-on-the-bitcoin-blockchain-expands-project/

[d5000]

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.

Of course here you're correct again, but the point I wanted to show with the example was not a technical similarity but a similarity regarding the legal concept of intent (or dolus in Latin). Both a BTC node and an ISP helps in distributing the data, but none of both has the intent to do it; the darknet forum containing the link can have such an intent though (although not always).

Here's a Wired article of Narayanan and others which supports this opinion and compares Bitcoin node operators to Tor exit node operators, which is actually a better comparison than nodes <-> ISPs.

Of course, ill-intentioned lawmakers could model the law (e.g. in the case of a moral panic) in a way open and immutable blockchains become impossible, but that's why I wrote that Bitcoin users should fight for that not to happen. Freedom of information movements have scored some victories in the recent past against over-restrictive regulators. And according to some studies, there's hundreds of millions of bitcoin users in the world which may be an attractive group of voters for politicians.

It's funny that the Wired article also mentions a possible solution that I've thought about a bit in the last days. One could make OP_RETURN data completely deletable, for example if their hash is recorded separately. In this case, even a "notify and take down" system could be implemented. The problem would perhaps be that the set of nodes offering the "full" blockchain with the data would decrease, in an extreme (but in the case of BTC, unlikely) case even to zero.

I would be more comfortable with such a system (combined perhaps with a sharper size restriction for taproot) than to restrict scripting to "allowed" scripts. You may not agree but I believe that "unapproved" innovation with scripts must be possible as a manual "whitelisting" very likely will be extremely slow.

[ABCbits]

~

You are correct about the limit of OP_RETURN as @ETFbitcoin pointed out but you are forgetting that the examples you used (documents related to ownership of a car or a house, etc.) has centralization attached to it so you don't need to store the whole document on bitcoin blockchain, but only some sort of link to it like a serial number or document hash, etc. and OP_RETURN's 80 byte limit is more than enough for that purpose.

Here is an example of real world application. Land registry by the government of Georgia using bitcoin blockchain:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2017/02/07/the-first-government-to-secure-land-titles-on-the-bitcoin-blockchain-expands-project/

And even for decentralized/distributed service, you don't have to store the data on Bitcoin blockchain. You could just replace URL/document hash with BitTorrent magnet link, IPFS hash or even TXID on sidechain/altcoin.

It's funny that the Wired article also mentions a possible solution that I've thought about a bit in the last days. One could make OP_RETURN data completely deletable, for example if their hash is recorded separately. In this case, even a "notify and take down" system could be implemented. The problem would perhaps be that the set of nodes offering the "full" blockchain with the data would decrease, in an extreme (but in the case of BTC, unlikely) case even to zero.

But in first place, who would bother implement such feature? Even if someone decide to implement it and make PR request, would it be accepted by maintainer of certain full node software?