On Ordinals: Where do you stand?

[larry_vw_1955]

I also didn't know Ordinals website can do this. I also found there's Snake game at https://ordinals.com/content/6edf80efbbae537b554340c31496439b57bef65357a57f21cbb547bc6287d7bfi0. But based on it's content type, it looks like you need to convert the game into HTML to make sure it's playable on browser unless you want to extract .exe or .com manually from ordinals transaction.

they even uploaded doom: https://decrypt.co/120459/will-it-run-doom-bitcoin

i tried it but it made my computer run too slow almost grinding it to a halt. 

[1714309337]

1714309337

[1714309337]

1714309337

[1714309337]

1714309337

[Wind_FURY]

I also didn't know Ordinals website can do this. I also found there's Snake game at https://ordinals.com/content/6edf80efbbae537b554340c31496439b57bef65357a57f21cbb547bc6287d7bfi0. But based on it's content type, it looks like you need to convert the game into HTML to make sure it's playable on browser unless you want to extract .exe or .com manually from ordinals transaction.

they even uploaded doom: https://decrypt.co/120459/will-it-run-doom-bitcoin

i tried it but it made my computer run too slow almost grinding it to a halt.  

Using of a blockchain for gaming would be a stupid way to use it, just like dick pics and fart sounds in the Bitcoin blockchain. Nothing of those truly need censorship-resistance. But, from the technical viewpoint, Ordinals are valid transactions that follows the consensus rules. Some people could argue that it's an exploit, its supporters argue that it's a feature. Both can be right depending on the person's point of view, but from Bitcoin's point of view, they are valid.

[DooMAD]

Using of a blockchain for gaming would be a stupid way to use it, just like dick pics and fart sounds in the Bitcoin blockchain. Nothing of those truly need censorship-resistance.

In most cases that's true.  However, Doom's predecessor, Wolfenstein 3D, was banned in Germany for a fairly significant length of time (for obvious reasons).  So there may be some fringe cases where censorship resistance could be a legitimate need.  But a blockchain remains an incredibly inefficient way to do it.  Particularly when filesharing technology has come such a long way and is purpose-built for that task.

[Wind_FURY]

Using of a blockchain for gaming would be a stupid way to use it, just like dick pics and fart sounds in the Bitcoin blockchain. Nothing of those truly need censorship-resistance.

In most cases that's true.  However, Doom's predecessor, Wolfenstein 3D, was banned in Germany for a fairly significant length of time (for obvious reasons).  So there may be some fringe cases where censorship resistance could be a legitimate need.  But a blockchain remains an incredibly inefficient way to do it.  Particularly when filesharing technology has come such a long way and is purpose-built for that task.

I'm talking about specifically the Bitcoin blockchain because it would be so inefficient. BitTorrent is a better network for that, the user can just download the files, then run the software locally.

When speaking of censorship-resistance, I believe it should solve something and make things more efficient, like for instance ransomware. Everyone sees it as something nefarious, but what Bitcoin actually did is it made a market out of insecure software, therefore making software builders release security updates/patches more often. There was a gap, a need, there that Bitcoin filled.

[Abiky]

Using of a blockchain for gaming would be a stupid way to use it, just like dick pics and fart sounds in the Bitcoin blockchain. Nothing of those truly need censorship-resistance. But, from the technical viewpoint, Ordinals are valid transactions that follows the consensus rules. Some people could argue that it's an exploit, its supporters argue that it's a feature. Both can be right depending on the person's point of view, but from Bitcoin's point of view, they are valid.

Ordinals NFTs are just "inscriptions" on the Bitcoin blockchain. They don't contain data from the NFT itself. As long as network fees are paid, the transaction is considered valid by the Blockchain. We could say "spam attacks" are also valid transactions, even though their intentions are malicious. Eventually, fees will rise to a point where it becomes economically unfeasible for the attacker to continue spamming the network with transactions.

I believe the same will happen with Ordinals in the long run. The higher the rate of NFTs inscriptions, the higher the fees will be. Once that happens, there will be a decline in NFT inscriptions, paving the way for normal users to perform transactions at a lower cost. BTC is strong and resilient, so there should be nothing to worry about. Just my thoughts

[larry_vw_1955]

I believe the same will happen with Ordinals in the long run. The higher the rate of NFTs inscriptions, the higher the fees will be. Once that happens, there will be a decline in NFT inscriptions, paving the way for normal users to perform transactions at a lower cost.

i'm not sure that's a valid point of view in the sense that not all inscriptions take up huge amounts of space. maybe some of them are smaller than some non ordinals "normal" bitcoin transactions so  no I don't think your point of view is really having a validity. normal users are never going to escape the transaction fee premium being caused by this new use case. if fees go way higher than of course, that impacts people using ordinals but it also affects people wanting to just do normal transactions.

[pooya87]

I believe the same will happen with Ordinals in the long run. The higher the rate of NFTs inscriptions, the higher the fees will be. Once that happens, there will be a decline in NFT inscriptions, paving the way for normal users to perform transactions at a lower cost. BTC is strong and resilient, so there should be nothing to worry about. Just my thoughts

This seems to be the most popular assumption so far although it sounds wrong. As I've said before this type of attack (unlike the previous forms) creates an incentive to spam so the attackers may not care about the cost while regular users sending bitcoin around do. That incentive is the scam market that is being built around the Ordinals Attack.

The logic is similar to the withdrawal fee people pay exchanges. Normally you'd say 50k-100k satoshi fee for a bitcoin transaction is outrageously high and yet you'd pay it to withdraw your coins from the exchange simply because there is an incentive to send your coins there in first place (profit from trading) hence that amount doesn't seem that high.

[nutildah]

This seems to be the most popular assumption so far although it sounds wrong. As I've said before this type of attack (unlike the previous forms) creates an incentive to spam so the attackers may not care about the cost while regular users sending bitcoin around do. That incentive is the scam market that is being built around the Ordinals Attack.

This is about your 60th post where you've incorrectly referred to ordinals as an "attack." You're nearly as bad as franky1 in that regard except the difference is you get paid to post b.s. and he does it out of his own free will.

The word "attack" infers that someone or some entity is attempting to do harm to something. As a noun it is defined as an "aggressive and violent action", except the thing is it hasn't interrupted Bitcoin in the slightest. Bitcoin continues to do its own thing just fine. It doesn't give a shit about how you think it should or shouldn't be used, BTW.

Basically its as simple as inscribers are utilizing Bitcoin in a way that you disapprove of so you're labeling it an "attack" out of butt hurtness. The sad thing is you'll keep lying and never get over it so long as there is financial incentive for you to not (aka continuing to rack up shitposts about it being an "attack").

[DooMAD]

The word "attack" infers that someone or some entity is attempting to do harm to something. As a noun it is defined as an "aggressive and violent action", except the thing is it hasn't interrupted Bitcoin in the slightest. Bitcoin continues to do its own thing just fine. It doesn't give a shit about how you think it should or shouldn't be used, BTW.

My stance falls somewhere between the two extremes.  I don't see it as an attack, but it is a tremendously wasteful and inefficient way to do things.  I certainly wouldn't encourage the use of this exploit when there are far more suitable ways to implement it.

It's about finding the right medium for a given task.  Much like how a toddler's crayon doodles can definitely go on the fridge, but displaying them in a major art gallery wouldn't be appropriate. 

[BlackHatCoiner]

This is about your 60th post where you've incorrectly referred to ordinals as an "attack."

While I do agree that NFTs should not be seen as an attack, I hope you understand Ordinals became a feature by mistake. Exploiting a part of the protocol in such manner that would make the rest introduce means of censorship to fix it later on, while genius, should not be expected to be seen by everyone as a standard state of the network. Unless you think that Ordinals would inevitably come at some point, whether that exploit was found or not.

[d5000]

Yep, I also disapprove the way Ordinals was introduced (more on that here). However, in a decentralized P2P setting, you can't really avoid this kind of hacks.

I also think it's not really an attack, most likely simply they thought it would add a "cool" NFT feature to good ol' BTC. However, we can't be sure that it's not an move by a group which wants to take the Bitcoin network in a certain direction.

For example, it's possible that it was conceived in reality by a group of miners who want to boost transaction fees with that, creating finally the long awaited "fee market".

There are also some other groups who have advocated in the past that Bitcoin block space should be scarce, and that Bitcoin should be used as a settlement layer, for example for Lightning or sidechains adoption. It's also possible that for example a sidechain company (Stacks, Blockstream, RSK) is behind the move, although I don't really believe that. Of course, also a NFT company could be the originator of the idea.

So an attack (in the sense of "a move by a group to benefit themselves in detriment of some Bitcoin users") unfortunately can't be ruled out completely.

However, I'm generally pretty chill, as ordinal size and blockchain usage is generally on a downtrend, although there seems to have been an activity peak just yesterday.

[larry_vw_1955]

This is about your 60th post where you've incorrectly referred to ordinals as an "attack." You're nearly as bad as franky1 in that regard except the difference is you get paid to post b.s. and he does it out of his own free will.

whoever pooya lets pay him to post they are lucky because he contributes alot to the forum. ALOT.

[Abiky]

This seems to be the most popular assumption so far although it sounds wrong. As I've said before this type of attack (unlike the previous forms) creates an incentive to spam so the attackers may not care about the cost while regular users sending bitcoin around do. That incentive is the scam market that is being built around the Ordinals Attack.

The logic is similar to the withdrawal fee people pay exchanges. Normally you'd say 50k-100k satoshi fee for a bitcoin transaction is outrageously high and yet you'd pay it to withdraw your coins from the exchange simply because there is an incentive to send your coins there in first place (profit from trading) hence that amount doesn't seem that high.

That's the real issue. Thanks for highlighting that. Even though fees can increase with every NFT inscription, scammers can still profit by selling their NFTs at a high price on the market. Most people don't do their own research when investing into crypto or NFTs themselves, so they will get scammed big time.

I think it would've been better for Ordinals to live on a Layer-2 scaling solution such as the Lightning Network just to avoid adding further pressure to the main Bitcoin blockchain. Maybe nodes/miners will ultimately reject transactions with Ordinals inscriptions for the good of the network itself? I really hope BTC stays cheap and fast to use (sort of) for day-to-day payments. Otherwise, it'd become completely unusable. No one can predict the future, so we can only hope for the best. Just my opinion

[ABCbits]

This is about your 60th post where you've incorrectly referred to ordinals as an "attack."

While I do agree that NFTs should not be seen as an attack, I hope you understand Ordinals became a feature by mistake.

Is it really mistake when default verification of Taproot script (see BIP 342) intentionally remove limit (such as 10000 bytes script size limit) which exist on previous script type?

I think it would've been better for Ordinals to live on a Layer-2 scaling solution such as the Lightning Network just to avoid adding further pressure to the main Bitcoin blockchain. Maybe nodes/miners will ultimately reject transactions with Ordinals inscriptions for the good of the network itself? I really hope BTC stays cheap and fast to use (sort of) for day-to-day payments. Otherwise, it'd become completely unusable. No one can predict the future, so we can only hope for the best. Just my opinion

But until now, NFT on LN (with protocol such as RGB and Tro), NFT on sidechain (such as RSK) or Ordinal data stored else-where (such as side-chain layer and BitTorrent) are mostly ignored by people who are NFT enthusiast and own some Bitcoin. I expect this thread will continue as long as NFT enthusiast prefer storing their data (image, audio, etc.) on-chain or there's very user-friendly to make NFT on LN/side-chain.

[NotATether]

The word "attack" infers that someone or some entity is attempting to do harm to something. As a noun it is defined as an "aggressive and violent action", except the thing is it hasn't interrupted Bitcoin in the slightest. Bitcoin continues to do its own thing just fine. It doesn't give a shit about how you think it should or shouldn't be used, BTW.

My stance falls somewhere between the two extremes.  I don't see it as an attack, but it is a tremendously wasteful and inefficient way to do things.  I certainly wouldn't encourage the use of this exploit when there are far more suitable ways to implement it.

It's about finding the right medium for a given task.  Much like how a toddler's crayon doodles can definitely go on the fridge, but displaying them in a major art gallery wouldn't be appropriate. 

And I see it more as a civil war.

Meanwhile, while we are wasting time arguing about what to do about Ordinals, other problems surrounding Bitcoin (which I think almost everyone here on this thread is aware about) has are not getting any solutions. So maybe, it is better to redirect our word power into fighting those things.

[franky1]

The word "attack" infers that someone or some entity is attempting to do harm to something. As a noun it is defined as an "aggressive and violent action", except the thing is it hasn't interrupted Bitcoin in the slightest. Bitcoin continues to do its own thing just fine. It doesn't give a shit about how you think it should or shouldn't be used, BTW.

My stance falls somewhere between the two extremes.  I don't see it as an attack, but it is a tremendously wasteful and inefficient way to do things.  I certainly wouldn't encourage the use of this exploit when there are far more suitable ways to implement it.

It's about finding the right medium for a given task.  Much like how a toddler's crayon doodles can definitely go on the fridge, but displaying them in a major art gallery wouldn't be appropriate.  

And I see it more as a civil war.

Meanwhile, while we are wasting time arguing about what to do about Ordinals, other problems surrounding Bitcoin (which I think almost everyone here on this thread is aware about) has are not getting any solutions. So maybe, it is better to redirect our word power into fighting those things.

dont worry about doomad.. he has his own motivations

through out the past he calls making alot of NORMAL bitcoin transactions a spam attack. but those wasting space with dead memes of no value spamming he doesnt call it an attack, he adores their actions. purely because he hates bitcoin being a payment system, he wants his middle men required service network to be a payment network.. and its these dead valueless memes that are a thing that helps him annoy bitcoiners to not want to use bitcoin as much. these valueles dead memes helps the fees rise so he can push his adverts about other systems he prefers people to use. he does not want this stuff to stop. he has been clear about this in his topic many times
he in this very topic has loved the job they do to annoy people

he cant now pretend to change his mind and pretend he is against it because even now he doesnt want to call it an attack even though he gets very vocal when people make simple tx enmasse as an attack..

he is just a sponsored hypocrit

[DooMAD]

*usual mindless drivel from a raving would-be-tyrant*

Freedom is my top priority.  Authoritarianism is yours.  Even though I'd rather not see silly novelty pictures stored on the BTC chain, I'm not going to tell people they can't do it.  That's your favourite thing to do.  I'll call it wasteful and inconsiderate, sure.  But I don't see it as my right to place restrictions on the freedoms of others.  Lemme guess, you're still calling for it to be banned but you're failing miserably at achieving anything?  Story of your pathetic life, isn't it?  Guess we'll just add it to the growing list of things you despise but made absolutely zero progress preventing. 

[franky1]

doomad you yet again want the monarchy of core devs to reign supreme and be unquestioned unrestricted and not responsible for their position ..

you want them to have freedom but not have them responsible for their actions.. that is authoritarian

you HATE that bitcoin used to require majority of users consent to activate a rule core wish.
you LOVE that bitcoin now allows crap in, initially caused by core and you dont think core should be blamed nor that core should fix their trojan back door

you have the warped sense of logic/reality. and you have no clue what true authoritarianism is nor examples of it

remember who actually does write the code and makes the rules.. stop pretending its franky .. becasue EVERYONE knows its core. they opened the door and you love their control and irresponsible actions

[BlackHatCoiner]

you want them to have freedom but not have them responsible for their actions..

Yes, franky. That's what DooMAD wants. To have irresponsible developers. It is crystal clear to me now. Thank you for your non-stop announcement service of desperate whining in the last 7 years.

[larry_vw_1955]

But until now, NFT on LN (with protocol such as RGB and Tro), NFT on sidechain (such as RSK) or Ordinal data stored else-where (such as side-chain layer and BitTorrent) are mostly ignored by people who are NFT enthusiast and own some Bitcoin.

exactly. you can offer people a million alternatives to using ordinals but they won't use it. they want their monkeys being stored on the bitcoin blockchain. and nothing else will suffice. they dont' care about why using alternatives might unburden the bitcoin blockchain. not at all. 

I expect this thread will continue as long as NFT enthusiast prefer storing their data (image, audio, etc.) on-chain or there's very user-friendly to make NFT on LN/side-chain.

there's probably more than 1 million ordinals, maybe this thread will get 1 million posts at some point.