On Ordinals: Where do you stand?

[larry_vw_1955]

Satoshi didn't invent Bitcoin to see what it turns into in the future and say "what the heck, it turned into a cloud storage that died afterwards". We also didn't adopt bitcoin thinking it can turn into a shitcoin by letting people who don't even run full nodes themselves upload garbage to other people's computers!

right!

just the other day someone uploaded a naked lady with her boobs exposed! i'm sure satoshi would not be too excited that this is what became of bitcoin, a storage place for nudes. 

[1714239018]

1714239018

[1714239018]

1714239018

[1714239018]

1714239018

[bbc.reporter]

Good news for NFT lovers, bad news for NFT haters. Yuga Labs, the creator of Bored Apes Yacht Club and who also owns the rights for other bluechip NFTs has launched Twelvefold NFT collection in the bitcoin blockchain. I am not quite certain when an exchange for NFTs similar to opensea.io will be created for bitcoin NFTs, however, I am quite certain Twelvefold will by very popular for the NFTspace.



Yuga Labs, the creator of the Bored Ape Yacht Club, announced the release of a new bitcoin-based NFT collection called TwelveFold.

The collection will consist of 300 generative art pieces inscribed onto satoshis on the Bitcoin blockchain.

Inscriptions, also known as digital artifacts, are created when a file, such as an art image like those created for TwelveFold, is written (or inscribed into) units of Bitcoin called satoshis, the smallest individually identifiable units of Bitcoin.

Source https://www.theblock.co/post/215504/yuga-labs-drops-bitcoin-based-nft-collection-twelvefold

[franky1]

Inscriptions, also known as digital artifacts, are created when a file, such as an art image like those created for TwelveFold, is written (or inscribed into) units of Bitcoin called satoshis, the smallest individually identifiable units of Bitcoin.[/i]

Source https://www.theblock.co/post/215504/yuga-labs-drops-bitcoin-based-nft-collection-twelvefold

and thats the silly stuff that needs correcting..
they are not wrote into satoshis. they are placed as dead weight data into the witness area which is separate to the value stuff.
and when value is spent the next tx has no references in a spending tx that even references the dead weight data.

when/if the silly ordinals go bad and/or casey changes his algo to change which output he deemed is owner. and people are left realising they overpaid for something they have no claim over.. they will say bitcoin cheated them

[nutildah]

they are note wrote into satoshis. they are placed as dead weight data into the witness area which is separate to the value stuff.

Its the same thing.  

and when value is spent the next tx has no references in a spending tx that even references the dead weight data.

Wrong. The reference is the tx.

when/if the silly ordinals go bad and/or casey changes his algo to change which output he deemed is owner. and people are left realising they overpaid for something they have no claim over.. they will say bitcoin cheated them

Again, if you bothered to take one second to understand how it actually works you'd realize this isn't possible. But you won't. Just don't expect your misinformation to go unchallenged.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I am all for censorship resistant peer-to-peer electronic cash. That's what Bitcoin has always stood for; I don't understand why it can't stay this way and we have to expand to this all-encompassing 'censorship-resistant data storage + payments + social network' or whatever else people want to put on top of blockchain.

And I'm all in for that too, as long as the only disincentive to this is the transaction fee. I can't figure out another way to stop this upcoming junk without censoring. And if you have to censor certain transactions for not being in favor of "peer-to-peer electronic cash", you're opening the Pandora's box of "how do you know what's a currency transaction and what's not".

understand the word FULL
then understand when you turn off services you are less than full

Serious question here: if I create a softfork with minimum recognition, do I make the rest of you less full?

[franky1]

ae92e8302a1532635b7b688363f031992c4e073f1ba534f8ebb0f4efee5584a8
[from: blk760,000 txidh45hbl4hblah output 0
to 1000 bc1pnutty
to 1000 bc1pdumbdum
signed]
meme


ok as you can see meme is appended to the very end it is not put where the satoshis sit  
the data of the entire transaction does not command/inform that the meme is to be tethered to the first "1000"
in any way by any association of actual data suggesting so in the blockchain
its just put at the end as deadweight

emphasis in real blockchain data the meme is not in the 1000 area nor includes anything in real data to say its associated with 1000

when spending nutty THINKS meme is locked to his output. but again no blockchain data even does that. its just an idea of caseys, where casey can change his idea without affecting blockdata

anyway
imagine the human readable tx above gets locked into block 778,000

so nutty is making a tx
1e03044f7c7ff3f04301d9494f25d13d50b5311a0d549a5f939fb7a56cc216ba
[from: blk778,000 ae92e8302a1532635b7b688363f031992c4e073f1ba534f8ebb0f4efee5584a8 output 0
to 1 bc1pfruitcake
to 749 bc1nutty
signed] (nutty pays 250 sat fee)

here as you can see the transaction does not contain the meme
nor any reference in the tx data that there is something special about the satoshi being sent to fruitcake

fruitcake has the txid of 1e03044f7c7ff3f04301d9494f25d13d50b5311a0d549a5f939fb7a56cc216ba to use for its own utxo

but guess what there is nothing about that tx that says anything about a meme property inside it.. no meme itself, no meme in the sat, no special stuff at all.. nothing in the sat area.. nothing in the witness area.. its all just done by caseys "chain analysis" where caseys software decides to follow output 0 taints forward to make a PRESUMPTION that fruitcake owns the meme now

and casey can easily change his PRESUMPTION by changing his "chain analysis" tainting program to just say "follow 'output1' not 'output 0'" and suddenly dumdum owns the meme in caseys software.. all without changing any block data

and thats why it fails the NFT/ownership test. because there is no actual data change/movement/ownership or involvement in each transaction that shows property/value moving with ownership change of the property item supposedly being moved (the meme never moves)

and suddenly by caseys software changing its presumed taint path. ownership can change without fruitcake being involved in any decision

UNDERSTAND NOW?

[n0nce]

I am all for censorship resistant peer-to-peer electronic cash. That's what Bitcoin has always stood for; I don't understand why it can't stay this way and we have to expand to this all-encompassing 'censorship-resistant data storage + payments + social network' or whatever else people want to put on top of blockchain.

And I'm all in for that too, as long as the only disincentive to this is the transaction fee. I can't figure out another way to stop this upcoming junk without censoring. And if you have to censor certain transactions for not being in favor of "peer-to-peer electronic cash", you're opening the Pandora's box of "how do you know what's a currency transaction and what's not".

I already mentioned some examples how to disincentivize it. For instance, some privacy coins drastically reduce the amount of publicly viewable data per transaction due to encryption of many transaction components. Therefore, the overhead of misusing the blockchain for something it's not made for, becomes much more expensive, without having to resort to increasing the transaction fee rate (as you suggest) which would affect everyone (especially also people just sending money around).

[franky1]

blackhatcoiner is stuck in the madhatter narrative.
he does not realise that changing the rule for taproot from 'upto 3.99mb' to '80bytes' does not cause any network split or require mass node adoption to activate
it just requires miner assisted activation (them consenting to follow new rule and reject bloaty tx that have meme data)

bitcoin was never a meme library so rejecting memes is not censoring things bitcoin is meant for
its actually ensuring bitcoin remains what it is meant for

bitcoin has always had rules to reject certain data/tx's.. thats why you dont see double spends or sat dust transactions or other altcoin transactions or pictures of shopping lists. or [insert many examples of things not allowed into a block]

[Artemis3]

Good news for NFT lovers, bad news for NFT haters. Yuga Labs, the creator of Bored Apes Yacht Club and who also owns the rights for other bluechip NFTs has launched Twelvefold NFT collection in the bitcoin blockchain. I am not quite certain when an exchange for NFTs similar to opensea.io will be created for bitcoin NFTs, however, I am quite certain Twelvefold will by very popular for the NFTspace.

Of course like i was saying, this is only the beginning. There is a spam attack going on, some with commercial incentive, and some people want to pretend its nothing.

Its not about NFTs, its about spam. Anything that is not Bitcoin transactions is spam and this spam is going to grow if left unchecked, like some people want. Who benefits from the destruction of Bitcoin?

[franky1]

Good news for NFT lovers, bad news for NFT haters. Yuga Labs, the creator of Bored Apes Yacht Club and who also owns the rights for other bluechip NFTs has launched Twelvefold NFT collection in the bitcoin blockchain. I am not quite certain when an exchange for NFTs similar to opensea.io will be created for bitcoin NFTs, however, I am quite certain Twelvefold will by very popular for the NFTspace.

Of course like i was saying, this is only the beginning. There is a spam attack going on, some with commercial incentive, and some people want to pretend its nothing.

Its not about NFTs, its about spam. Anything that is not Bitcoin transactions is spam and this spam is going to grow if left unchecked, like some people want. Who benefits from the destruction of Bitcoin?

businesses and greedy people make no money from a peer 2 peer transaction on bitcoin
because if you can move your wealth to another bitcoin address there is no custodian/business service taking a cut

so those greedy schemers try to built alternative systems/networks and try to delay bitcoin utility growth by trying to claim these other networks are bitcoin 2.0 trying to get people over to other networks that do charge middlemen routing fee's and balance borrowing to get payments from source to destination..

its these greedy schemers that want to break bitcoin to promote their alternative networks as the solutions

they dont want onchain tx scaling growth. they dont want cheap fee's on bitcoin. they dont want people having easily usage of bitcoin. they want to bloat it up and kill of tx payment utility on bitcoin as it feeds into their greed if they can recruit people to their other network

they want the spam they want the bloat they want high bitcoin fee's and low transaction counts.. they dont care about bitcoin. they are altcoiners

[BlackHatCoiner]

I already mentioned some examples how to disincentivize it. For instance, some privacy coins drastically reduce the amount of publicly viewable data per transaction due to encryption of many transaction components.

Here's a minor but important thing to note: those particular cryptocurrencies you mentioned previously didn't begin with this feature, which appeared to be a trouble for some later on. And even if they did, removing it later should be considered censorship. Bitcoin on the other hand allows you to store data since v0.1. Second, as far as I understand, cryptocurrencies like grin and monero don't have the analog of OP_RETURN? Isn't that a serious disadvantage for forward compatibility?

bitcoin has always had rules to reject certain data/tx's..

I don't talk with people who don't agree with me on Bitcoin's most important principle being censorship resistance.

[franky1]

bitcoin has always had rules to reject certain data/tx's..

I don't talk with people who don't agree with me on Bitcoin's most important principle being censorship resistance.

i know you dont talk to people outside your narrow minded buzzword.. thats why you sound like an echo chamber of idiot narratives

but one day i hope you do escape the trap you set yourself
i hope one day you find confidence to escape it and decide its time to learn about consensus and bitcoins rules(code)

i thought i seen you attempt glimmer of that confidence a couple months ago. but today you have shown you have lost confidence and again are shying away from speaking outside your echo chamber bubble group

[coolcoinz]

People have the right to add things to their transactions, but other people have the right to reject such transactions. It's a matter of which group is going to be bigger in the end.

I agree that there should be some censorship and that censorship should not be done the authoritarian way, but rather the libertarian way, with a pinch of capitalism.
If someone came to me and told me they want to spray my car bright pink and do the same with my house because they're making a youtube challenge or something, I wouldn't say no, I'd ask what am I getting out of it. If you pay me $20k, go ahead and paint my car pink, I'll go get it wrapped for 5k and have another 15k left.

You want to spam the network, fine, but how much are you willing to pay?

I'd rather not see a picture of a penguin or a monkey attached to my transaction, but if someone is willing to pay big money for that, so be it. Maybe we'll all profit on this thing one day because Judy will pay 100k to have her instagram link on every full node.

[n0nce]

I already mentioned some examples how to disincentivize it. For instance, some privacy coins drastically reduce the amount of publicly viewable data per transaction due to encryption of many transaction components.

Here's a minor but important thing to note: those particular cryptocurrencies you mentioned previously didn't begin with this feature, which appeared to be a trouble for some later on. And even if they did, removing it later should be considered censorship. Bitcoin on the other hand allows you to store data since v0.1. Second, as far as I understand, cryptocurrencies like grin and monero don't have the analog of OP_RETURN? Isn't that a serious disadvantage for forward compatibility?

I agree, they are very different in nature and it would be hard to use the same mechanisms in Bitcoin. Maybe they could be used just as inspiration and we could create something new that fits Bitcoin and still lets us achieve the same goals.

[DooMAD]

I agree that there should be some censorship and that censorship should not be done the authoritarian way, but rather the libertarian way, with a pinch of capitalism.
If someone came to me and told me they want to spray my car bright pink and do the same with my house because they're making a youtube challenge or something, I wouldn't say no, I'd ask what am I getting out of it. If you pay me $20k, go ahead and paint my car pink, I'll go get it wrapped for 5k and have another 15k left.

You want to spam the network, fine, but how much are you willing to pay?

I'd call that 'supply & demand' rather than 'censorship', but otherwise, yes.  That's pretty much what it boils down to.  There are cheaper blockchains to spam, so this current attention we're getting from the novelty-picture-brigade hopefully won't last long.  If I'm wrong and they keep spamming the BTC chain, then it's up to the collective network as a whole to decide what, if anything, needs to be done about it.  But I'd rather see a productive conversation about it, rather than a witch-hunt.    

they want the spam they want the bloat they want high bitcoin fee's and low transaction counts.. they dont care about bitcoin. they are altcoiners

I don't recall anyone specifically advocating for high fees.  That's just more dishonesty on your part.  Reasonable people are simply suggesting that market forces shouldn't be artificially manipulated one way or the other.  Fee bidding has always been organic.  As soon as you attempt to tip the scales one way or another, the onus is on you to justify why everyone should accept your suggested manipulation.  Your case remains unconvincing.  Come up with better arguments.

One could also argue that those who can only think as far as copying what unsuccessful altcoins have done; Those who would mimic the cheap, faltering, dismal clones of Bitcoin; Those who would willingly sacrifice what makes Bitcoin stand out from the sea of unremarkable shite out there, they would be the one who doesn't care about Bitcoin.  That's you, by the way.  Maybe come up with something more original than "let's do the same thing worthless altcoins did and sacrifice decentralisation for throughput, even though it completely defeats the whole point of having a decentralised network in the first place" and people might start taking you seriously.  One-trick-pony, much?

And for the record, I'm not completely opposed to increases to the size of blocks.  I just happen to believe it will only occur when those supporting the network are prepared to bear the cost of such increases.  And I'm yet to see any evidence to counter that belief.  Individual zealots perched atop their soapboxes, preaching their hate-filled dogma to the crowd, have remarkably little say in the matter.  The network is naturally resistant to such noise.  Sorry, but you don't get to demand that other people pay the cost for everything.  If you want to use the valuable resource others are providing you with, you pay for it.  Nowhere is it said that someone not only has to provide you with a service and also pay for it themselves, just so you can be a parasitic leech and get something for nothing.  But everything you describe in your fantasy-fascist-fuckwit-franky wishlist sounds like you just want free shit handed to you.


  

I already mentioned some examples how to disincentivize it. For instance, some privacy coins drastically reduce the amount of publicly viewable data per transaction due to encryption of many transaction components.

Here's a minor but important thing to note: those particular cryptocurrencies you mentioned previously didn't begin with this feature, which appeared to be a trouble for some later on. And even if they did, removing it later should be considered censorship. Bitcoin on the other hand allows you to store data since v0.1. Second, as far as I understand, cryptocurrencies like grin and monero don't have the analog of OP_RETURN? Isn't that a serious disadvantage for forward compatibility?

I agree, they are very different in nature and it would be hard to use the same mechanisms in Bitcoin. Maybe they could be used just as inspiration and we could create something new that fits Bitcoin and still lets us achieve the same goals.

I certainly feel that 'incentive versus disincentive' is a much healthier line of discussion than 'Orwellian crackdowns on freedom', so I'm intrigued where this goes.  Please continue.

[franky1]

they want the spam they want the bloat they want high bitcoin fee's and low transaction counts.. they dont care about bitcoin. they are altcoiners

I don't recall anyone specifically advocating for high fees.  That's just more dishonesty on your part.  Reasonable people are simply suggesting that market forces shouldn't be artificially manipulated one way or the other.  Fee bidding has always been organic.  As soon as you attempt to tip the scales one way or another, the onus is on you to justify why everyone should accept your suggested manipulation.  Your case remains unconvincing.  Come up with better arguments.continue.

you cant remember your own words.. hmm??
you loved all the network changes that were made without mass node consent(consensus)
you love changes that are slid in without consultation of the masses
you love how fee's have been manipulated

YOU are the one obsessed with saying everyone should pay more

in recent years you have said limit the blocksize to push the fee market
now you are saying allow bloat in a limited block size to push the fee market

your the one talking about fee market incentives, bidding

you dont want more tx per block to allow lower fee's..
you dont want fee mechanisms that allow genuine users to pay less and only the spammers pay more.
heck you even loved how legacy transactions were treated as 4x the fee of segwit.

you want standard/legacy p2p payments (the way things used to be) to be made super expensive and you love how gateways to recruiting people towards using your favoured flaws subnetwork of middlemen taking commissions(routing)

all you care about is ways to make bitcoin expensive and impractical to use as a p2p network so you can scam, scheme, and and syphon value away from people for your own buddy groups gain.

you shout 'freedom' where what you really mean is a fee kingdom for everyone else and freedom for you
(a freedom that works in YOUR favour even at a cost to other people)
i know you are not a full node and you love to prune meaning you dont care about bitcoin network security as long as you can get your subnetwork channel to be open to new recruits using you as a middleman.

but atleast try to once in a while take a step back from your personal greed. and think of the ecosystem security as a whole for other users

[larry_vw_1955]

People have the right to add things to their transactions, but other people have the right to reject such transactions.

how does someone know if a particular transaction is an ordinals transaction. that seems like an impossible thing to determine. say i'm buying someone else's already minted nft. how are you going to know?

I'd rather not see a picture of a penguin or a monkey attached to my transaction, but if someone is willing to pay big money for that, so be it.

that's what you wish maybe but that's not what's happening. they are putting text nfts for data storage purposes and they aren't paying much.

Code:

{"p":"sns","op":"reg","name":"willsmith.sats"}

there's so many of them like that though it seems like someone is trying to run some type of domain name registry on bitcoin.  

[DooMAD]

you dont want more tx per block to allow lower fee's..

Firstly, what I want or don't want is irrelevant.  It's what the collective will of the entire network wants.

But if I did have a personal preference, it's for nodes to decide for themselves how much burden they are prepared to carry.  Which is what they are currently doing.  How many more times do I need to repeat it?  

you dont want fee mechanisms that allow genuine users to pay less and only the spammers pay more.

Again, what I want or don't want is irrelevant.  It's what the collective will of the entire network wants.

But if I had a preference, I wouldn't want a system where you decide what people should or shouldn't pay.  People are free to decide that for themselves.  Go create SocialistCoin if you want centrally planned fees.

[franky1]

you dont want fee mechanisms that allow genuine users to pay less and only the spammers pay more.

Again, what I want or don't want is irrelevant.  It's what the collective will of the entire network wants.

But if I had a preference, I wouldn't want a system where you decide what people should or shouldn't pay.  People are free to decide that for themselves.  Go create SocialistCoin if you want centrally planned fees.

funny part is without a better fee mechanism(you love bitcoin not having one and are fighting against anyone suggesting to implement one).. guess what..  without a fee mechanism.. everyone pays more thus makes it a socialist coin as you describe
yep core control that legacy pays more then segwit but everyone has to pay more based on a fee estimation code..

with a fee mechanism that individualises fee's. only the spammers/bloaters pay more and not everyone. and other people pay a respectable fee based on individual utility of bloat/time between spends
yep respending reciprocal utxos with low age confirms should only be higher fee rate to the spammer utilising blocks more then others.. not a system where everyone has to pay more due to the actions of a few

you want the socialist coin where a bloater causes everyone harm by everyone paying more


healthcare analogy:
there are 1999 people in good health that dont see a doctor weekly
there is 1 person who is fat, diabetic(bloated) who sees the doctor weekly

which system do you want
everyones national insurance to increase to cover doctors costs
respectable fees based on how often individuals see the doctor and how bloated they are

seems today you have tried to pull the socialist straw but not realised it

yet again you have pretended to be against one thing but actual idealise it and want to fight off anyone that is against your ideals

[BlackHatCoiner]

all you care about is ways to make bitcoin expensive and impractical to use as a p2p network so you can scam, scheme, and and syphon value away from people for your own buddy groups gain.

I've noticed this excuse lately from big blockers. Is this really all you have? In my local board, someone argued that the Bitcoin developers don't want scaling, because they're cooperating with politicians, so they can slow down adoption, with second-layer solutions being an obstacle to it. He even argued that due to Mastercard funding the development, it is behind this conspiracy. You sound like him now.

In which galaxy do we want Bitcoin to be more expensive and unusable as a peer-to-peer network? Grow up for once and use arguments adults use.