On Ordinals: Where do you stand?

[nutildah]

as for ordinals transfer. look at the blockchain data. take a real hard look
no  where in the winess area where a ordinal sits does to link to only one output
the GUI interface of caseys explorers does the linking but thats something he can change. meaning the transfers are not LOCKED to an output. they are assumed by just GUI interfaces

We've been over this several times before. There doesn't need to be a "link" in the witness area for the system to function. The inscription is assigned to the ordinal during the minting process via the rules of the protocol. It's almost the same way images are attached to Ethereum or Counterparty NFTs. The main difference is the image data for Ordinals NFTs is stored in the blockchain itself.

There's no reason for Casey to change the system, and has already been explained in this thread several times, if he suddenly decided to change the rules it would be very unpopular among inscribers and market participants. They would simply fork the project and revert to the old way of doing things.

Counterparty has two main devs. They make changes to the protocol on occasion. While some consensus is involved, some of the changes are not necessarily popular, but that's the way it goes. The reason why they don't break the system by making stupid changes is because they are heavily invested in its success, as Casey is with Ordinals.

[1714228261]

1714228261

[mindrust]

I am not as well informed about the vision Satoshi had for Bitcoin beyond the first years of existence. But I assume he would picture mining to become profitable eventually as his project grew through time.

Because, obviously he needed to created a good reason for the miners to work and there is no better universal incentive in this life than money and love. Unfortunately much of the love and passion for the project is long gone now profitability is more important.

It makes me kind of sad to see the Mempool in such state, to be honest.

Satoshi wanted everybody to contribute to the network that's why he thought "1 CPU = 1 vote" is a good idea and it was... as long as people don't get greedy but we are all greedy in the end. That's how capitalism works. Then satoshi also predicted the next thing which was going  to happen and that was the server farms and they happened too.

Maybe he thought this time would be different, maybe nobody would get greedy and everybody would mine on their PC's... He had to try it to know what will happen next and he found out about it. It happened just like he worried.



One CPU-One Vote is an important concept because when you go to elect a president, no matter how much money you have, you can only vote once. It is because one person-one vote. In the current state of PoW, you can have millions of votes in your possession and get away with it.

[Hispo]

I am not as well informed about the vision Satoshi had for Bitcoin beyond the first years of existence. But I assume he would picture mining to become profitable eventually as his project grew through time.

Because, obviously he needed to created a good reason for the miners to work and there is no better universal incentive in this life than money and love. Unfortunately much of the love and passion for the project is long gone now profitability is more important.

It makes me kind of sad to see the Mempool in such state, to be honest.

Satoshi wanted everybody to contribute to the network that's why he thought "1 CPU = 1 vote" is a good idea and it was... as long as people don't get greedy but we are all greedy in the end. That's how capitalism works. Then satoshi also predicted the next thing which was going  to happen and that was the server farms and they happened too.

Maybe he thought this time would be different, maybe nobody would get greedy and everybody would mine on their PC's... He had to try it to know what will happen next and he found out about it. It happened just like he worried.



One CPU-One Vote is an important concept because when you go to elect a president, no matter how much money you have, you can only vote once. It is because one person-one vote. In the current state of PoW, you can have millions of votes in your possession and get away with it.

I find difficult to think that Satoshi was not aware of the human nature and how it can push us all into a state of greed. Bitcoin was created in 2009, after all. And Satoshi was very informed of the bail out for banks and the crisis of 2008, much of it a consequence of human greed.

My personal theory is that Satoshi underestimated his own creation, he thought he was building an alternative payment processor in a decentralized way, not a technological and financial revolution like this one.

At least the Mempool seems to be getting lighter these last 24 hours, let us see what happens next.  I am expecting future congestions...

[larry_vw_1955]

One CPU-One Vote is an important concept because when you go to elect a president, no matter how much money you have, you can only vote once.

yeah we've long since gotten rid of that notion when it comes to bitcoin mining though. which is unfortunate.

In the current state of PoW, you can have millions of votes in your possession and get away with it.

which is a bad thing. it increases centralization, decreasing decentralization. makes bitcoin less democratic and more egalitarian. emphasizing inequality rather than equality. 

[BlackHatCoiner]

Satoshi wanted everybody to contribute to the network that's why he thought "1 CPU = 1 vote" is a good idea and it was...

No, he didn't. Emphasis mine.

For now, everyone just runs a full network node.

I anticipate there will never be more than 100K nodes, probably less.  It will reach an equilibrium where it's not worth it for more nodes to join in.  The rest will be lightweight clients, which could be millions.

At equilibrium size, many nodes will be server farms with one or two network nodes that feed the rest of the farm over a LAN.

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale.  That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server.  The design supports letting users just be users.  The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be.  Those few nodes will be big server farms.  The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.

It wasn't supposed to be one-CPU-one-vote. It was just how it worked in the first days, but it'd definitely not carry on long-term.

That's how capitalism works.

That's how humans work. Political regime is irrelevant in my opinion. Whoever thinks there is no such thing as greed in communism is gravely mistaken.

One CPU-One Vote is an important concept because when you go to elect a president, no matter how much money you have, you can only vote once. It is because one person-one vote. In the current state of PoW, you can have millions of votes in your possession and get away with it.

This is a feature, not a bug. Bitcoin is not democracy based. It's consensus based.

[franky1]

consensus is consent of the masses..

bitcoin was consensus based. but now its more meritocracy based.

economic nodes have more sway than user nodes.
devs nodes reign higher. and devs+economic nodes get to blackmail mining pool nodes.

there is a hierarchy system now. unlike 2009-2010

[Artemis3]

Do nothing, it will solve itself...

"4 months later..."

[franky1]

Do nothing, it will solve itself...

"4 months later..."

that mempool dead zone around april 22nd just goes to show:
1. this spam is orchestrated by just a small group that collude and were told to stop all at once
2. normal users stopped transacting whilst the spam was happening near completely, which is why when the spam stopped there was a dead zone because no one was really doing much normal stuff to make mempool drop to near zero

i do laugh at the alt-net promoters saying "dont worry it will die down"

imagine if fiat pulled this crap
"for next 4+ months it will cost you upto $70 to do a ATM/bank account withdrawal"
"dont do wire transfers for 1 week-4 months due to delays"
"sorry we cannot offer wire transfers in 10 minutes, please try again on a saturday, when the sun is at the horizon and jupiter is in the astro planes of virgo"
"we promise to offer you cheap paypal system to replace wire transfers, please wait and be patient for 7 years+ for us to try and get it to work for all"
"our paypal side hustle service only has a 100% payment success rates for payments under $50, if you would like to move $1k+ please be aware you may have to close your account and rebalance another account with another paypal partner"
"its been 7 years we wont fix the wire transfer scaling, nor current issues impeading normal flows, please be patient and try paypals limited function system until we can bother "
"we are sorry you are having issues with wire and paypal, this is a recorded message we do not respond to, please hang up and try again "

[larry_vw_1955]

imagine if fiat pulled this crap
"for next 4+ months it will cost you upto $70 to do a ATM/bank account withdrawal"
"dont do wire transfers for 1 week-4 months due to delays"
"sorry we cannot offer wire transfers in 10 minutes, please try again on a saturday, when the sun is at the horizon and jupiter is in the astro planes of virgo"
"we promise to offer you cheap paypal system to replace wire transfers, please wait and be patient for 7 years+ for us to try and get it to work for all"
"our paypal side hustle service only has a 100% payment success rates for payments under $50, if you would like to move $1k+ please be aware you may have to close your account and rebalance another account with another paypal partner"
"its been 7 years we wont fix the wire transfer scaling, nor current issues impeading normal flows, please be patient and try paypals limited function system until we can bother "
"we are sorry you are having issues with wire and paypal, this is a recorded message we do not respond to, please hang up and try again "

that's why alot of people probably wanted to get out of fiat in the first place and now they're dealing with the same situation here.  so in that sense, it's worse to use bitcoin for sending cash than almost any other method out there right now, if you have access to any other method. 

[BlackHatCoiner]

bitcoin was consensus based. but now its more meritocracy based.

Always has been. Developers, which is the group you're referring to, always have been the domain expertise and the group which brought the changes, as long as they formed consensus. If you look into the real problems on why some softforks and hardforks failed, you'll notice lack of unanimity from developers.

there is a hierarchy system now. unlike 2009-2010

Unlike then, the project is now orders of magnitude different in size. There are literally thousands of developers working on Bitcoin now more. It was a matter of time until those particular people's opinions mattered more than a bunch of laymen with less experience and competence.

[DooMAD]

consensus is consent of the masses..

And what you continue to forget is that by freely choosing to use this network, you are giving your consent.  That's the price of admission.  If you don't consent to these consensus rules, run different ones.  Just don't expect others to join you.

One CPU-One Vote is an important concept because when you go to elect a president, no matter how much money you have, you can only vote once. It is because one person-one vote. In the current state of PoW, you can have millions of votes in your possession and get away with it.

This is a feature, not a bug. Bitcoin is not democracy based. It's consensus based.

Oh, how I wish more people understood this concept.  "Democracy" is where you wait for someone's permission to call an election or referendum, you can only vote for people or things that you have been given permission to vote for and if you happen to be unavailable to cast your vote on the day you have been given permission to do so then you don't have a vote.  It presents the thin veneer of freedom, but ultimately there's not much to be had.  

Bitcoin could not be more different to that.  Permission is not required.  You effectively just do stuff and see who goes along with it.  And then you build a network together.  At any point you can leave the network of your own volition and later re-join the network as long as you are in agreement with the other participants on what the rules should be.  It's glorious.  Total freedom.  Democracy practically has us in shackles by comparison.

[franky1]

doomad says permission is not required
dang only a few months and he again forgets what consent is

id say give it 2 months and he will go full CSW wanting transactions to not even require permission via signatures. where anyone can move other peoples value into each others transactions without that person even being online

doomad you want to pretend that there was never any consensus activations that had a majority threshold for activation of certain things
yes its NOW softened and junk can be put in without consent. but thats not how things were done.
seems you forget anything beyond a few months ago

i know you LOVE that consensus has been softened and you dont want consensus hardened again. and you want all people who want bitcoin rules to be fixed and enforced again to run over to other networks.. yes we all know you want everyone to move away from bitcoin. we know you very well.

stop pretending you know more then the last script you read, because history, memory and real hard data is not your strong point.

again we know you ant to get people off the network we know you dont want bitcoin rules to be enforced, we know you idolise devs that want to break down the rules and let junk in. we know you dont want the junk to stop.
now get this hint

you are not a bitcoiner. you admit to such by your motives any motivations.. however bitcoiners who actually do care do want things fixed

[DooMAD]

you are not a bitcoiner. you admit to such by your motives any motivations.. however bitcoiners who actually do care do want things fixed

You hate literally everything that Bitcoin is today.  You hate freedom.  You hate permissionless.  You hate open-source.  You hate censorship resistance.  What are you even doing here when you despise literally everything that makes Bitcoin great?  

Cypherpunk you most certainly are not.  The closest thing to crypto you manage to embody is "crypto-fascist":

crypto-fascist
noun
cryp·​to-fascist ¦krip(ˌ)tō+
: one who has secret fascist sympathies but is not an avowed fascist

Climb into a bin and stay there, please.  You are trash.

doomad says permission is not required

Prove to me that is is.  Try and stop me from using LN to transact Bitcoin.  Block my efforts to run code that enables an opt-in soft-fork.  Prevent me from using a SegWit address.  Ban me from utilizing Taproot.  Deny me from writing and sharing some code that you don't like.  

I guarantee you can't.  None of it.  You can't stop a damned thing.  You hate all of it, but you can't prevent it.  Fuck your "data" and fuck your incessant whining.  You can't do shit.

No one cares about your elaborate fantasy nonsense that we need your personal approval to do things.  You are merely a continuous expulsion of meaningless hot-air and noise.  You can't stop me from doing anything.  

I do not require your permission or consent.  

Get it through your impenetrably thick skull.

[franky1]

he really has no clue about consent at all

a. no one can move my value without my permission. because it need my signature.. my signed consent
b. no one can put a LN onion payment into the bitcoin blockchain. nor a litecoin transaction into bitcoins blockchain as a valid bitcoin payment.. understand how onion payments and litecoin transactions dont meet the format or test of a bitcoin transaction
c. no one can just change the block subsidy from 6.25 to 200btc without full network agreement.. which has been agreed and given permission to only change only every 210k blocks and agreed that it will only change by halving

do you understand what rules are and do and the whole mechanisms of bitcoin, which is meant to follow rules..
yes the rules got softened but you have no clue what rules or permission or consent is. you just like that rules got relaxed, removed, bypassed and now you want to pretend thats how it always was

i know you love the idea that devs no longer need a consensus activation to change things. but thats a new ability that they manufactured over the years using a blackmailed mandated change and then further changes after that.. . its not what had always existed.

oh but it is funny how you loved that they rejected blocks not signalling for the change.. which was censorship by the way.. yep you love censorship. you pretend you dont becasue you are losing fans by your old habits. but your new pretence of pretending to be anti-censorship is the lie. and many see that

you want to pretend there never was any rules and consent was never needed and anyone can do anything. pfft. say what you like but bitcoin has hard data and code and a archive of both that show your version of events is the lie

LEARN BITCOIN.. not just the parts your puppet masters want you to know. their hand up your ass is not there to comfort you. its there to make you say whatever they want you to say to promote their schemes of other crap, which you happily advertise for them.

[DooMAD]

a. no one can move my value without my permission. because it need my signature.. my signed consent
b. no one can put a LN onion payment into the bitcoin blockchain. nor a litecoin transaction into bitcoins blockchain as a valid bitcoin payment.. understand how onion payments and litecoin transactions dont meet the format or test of a bitcoin transaction
c. no one can just change the block subsidy from 6.25 to 200btc without full network agreement.. which has been agreed and given permission to only change only every 210k blocks and agreed that it will only change by halving

Yes.  Because these are the rules, among others, that network participants freely choose to abide by when they use Bitcoin.  By using this network, everyone is actively consenting to these rules.  If a user were to break these rules and try to add something to the chain which does not conform, they will no longer be compatible with this chain.  They would be forked off and would then need to form a new chain of their own.

You seem to struggle with the distinction between INDIVIDUAL consent and COLLECTIVE consent.

You are welcome to have opinions on how "soft" the rules are, but as an individual, you cannot unilaterally block changes to the rules.  You are free to leave, but you have no influence over the collective will of the network.  And crying that everyone else is somehow breaching your individual rights by using "soft" rules does not change the fact that they are the accepted rules of this network.  If enough people run code that permits something to happen, then that thing can happen whether you like it or not.  As a collective, those securing the chain do not require your personal, individual, permission or consent to change the rules.  Again, prove me wrong.  Show me that you can prevent any of it.  SegWit, LN, Taproot or any future softforks.  Provide the evidence that you can make any of it fail to exist.

Bitcoin does not care about "what had always existed".  It only recognises what is valid according to the current rules the majority are enforcing at any given time.  And that includes rules created by opt-in softforks.  You can try to dictate what you perceive to be invalid, but you will fail.  Every.  Single.  Time.  Because all you have are opinions.  No code.  And seemingly no fellow users with which you could form a new totalitarian, closed-source, freedom-hating, fully-censored network.

Please create some code.  Please find some of your fellow nazis who are as bat-shit loony as you and build your disgusting, hate-filled abomination of a network together.  I'd love to see how far you get.  But given the absolutely zero progress you've made in convincing anyone of anything since 2017, I'm assuming you wouldn't get far.  And you know this too.  So instead, you'll keep using Bitcoin, despite how much you loathe it.  And the collective majority will continue adding new opt-in features that they would like to see.  And there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.


//EDIT:  response to franky1's moronic reply:

however when you were trying to discuss your version of consensus you reply about your individual ability to go run off and use lightning

grow up

Yeah, I'm literally the only user.  Oh wait...

Number of LN Nodes at time of writing:  16,417

It's almost as though a collective of people sees value in the technology... 

You grow up. 

those have been SOFTENED. where now even the collective cant stop it..

Of course they could.  But they'd have to run some code to do that.  And as far as I can see, no one is doing that.  The collective majority are continuing to run the code that allows it.  And that's their choice. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  You can talk about changes all you like.  But unless you code something, or pay someone to code something for you, you will NEVER achieve ANYTHING.  You think you can make a better alternative?  Go build it.  Put up or shut up. 

And the same applies to anyone else.  If you genuinely believe you idea is worth considering, don't wait for permission.  Just build it.  People might start using it.  After all, it worked for this Casey Rodarmor chap.  He's clearly achieved more in the last month than franky1 ever will in his sad, pathetic life.  You might not like him very much right now, but Casey is living testament to the fact that I'm right.

and you dont want them to even if they could
you know only the core devs can merge in a fix. and you dont want them to do it nor do you want people to ask them to

With the explicit understanding that my individual personal preferences are equally as unimportant as yours in the grand scheme of things... Yes:
 
I'd rather not see users or devs resort to some short-sighted, reactionary lynch-mob mentality. 
I'd rather not see those who should know better foolhardily abandoning one of Bitcoin's fundamental tenets and primary selling points. 
I'd rather not see idiots making mountains out of molehills when the network is sufficiently robust to survive a bit of congestion.
I'd rather not see the loss of something as hugely significant as censorship resistance when it's something we could easily avoid with the application of a little fucking patience.

Sorry for pointing out what should be obvious consequences to your massive crybaby shit-fit.  I know it causes problems with you selling your false narratives to other readers of this topic.  Please, don't let me stop you filling their screens with mindless bullshit about how totalitarianism has all the answers.  And how we could have a perfectly efficient system if we just abandon all our principles and let frankenfuher1 decide what to do.

Get rekt.

[franky1]

doomad you are the one that does not know the difference between individual and collective

funny part is you are the one also telling people what to do. telling them to not propose a fix. telling people to go use another network

i said many times now consensus is the consent OF THE MASSES(collective)
its funny how now your saying it but pretending you came up with it

however when you were trying to discuss your version of consensus you reply about your individual ability to go run off and use lightning

grow up

consensus is not about your ability to go play with monero, or deposit your darknet scam money into a mixer
consensus is about agreeing/consenting to the rules. where those rules have become soft, which is bad..
.. as you can see by this junk now appearing

rules which WERE stronger.. rules which DID REQUIRE people to stick to certain formatting REQUIREMENTS
where new formats USED TO REQUIRE mass consent(consensus) activation

those have been SOFTENED. where now even the collective cant stop it.. and you dont want them to even if they could
you know only the core devs can merge in a fix. and you dont want them to do it nor do you want people to ask them to

will you try and learn.. just once

the upto 4mb of junk memes has never been standard or part of bitcoins proposition. there were limits and there were checks and purpose for every byte in a transaction.. its called formatting conditions of a transaction that people needed to abide by
that formatting condition.. people needed to agree to put transaction in to a certain format to be ACCEPTED as a valid transaction ALLOWED to be in a block..  but those rules have been softened allowing more junk in now

yep to be accepted as a valid transaction transactions used to be required to contain only certain things.
there were even rules on length of signature/witness lengths.

if you cant understand that there were rules where things that did not fit the rules were rejected then you have no clue about anything

if you think everything was allowed and nothing was rejected you again have no clue

all you do know is a script someone told you where you want junk in the blockchain but you want genuine users off the blockchain

[BitcoinTS.org]

I know there's already a thread on Ordinals in the Development & Technical Discussion board but it's more on the technical side of things.

I guess it's interesting to hear what others have to say on what this latest development fundamentally entails or implies. There have been opposing views on this even among Bitcoin developers.

Some would say this kind of non-financial transaction isn't what Bitcoin is designed for. Surely, however, somebody could just brush this off somehow putting Satoshi's original idea seemingly subservient to what the community currently wants to make of it. Ordinals' Rodarmor himself asserted that Bitcoin has already "transcended the intentions of its creator."^[1]

While a core developer dismissed this controversy as a non-issue, another core developer went as far as calling this an attack on Bitcoin itself. While somebody doesn't understand the fuss over something which is dumb and should simply be forgotten, even Adam Back, perhaps out of frustration, had to call it a "fair-game for miners to censor the crap as a form of discouragement." Of course, he had to retract it in the name of Bitcoin being censorship-resistant and permission-less. But even Rodamor himself had to also censor, at least from Ordinals' site, a lewd image inscription.^[2]

The launch of the Ordinals protocol even put into question whether Bitcoin's base layer should be left alone or be kept open for anybody to tinker with and develop. Some would even call for Bitcoin's ossification to protect it from features that have possible negative repercussions.

And then there's also the issue of fungibility considering that a Satoshi assigned with a unique inscription such as an image or even a video is no longer the same with the rest.

What is your opinion on this? Are you in favor of this or not?

[1] https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2023/01/31/bitcoin-community-erupts-in-existential-debate-over-nft-project-ordinals/
[2] https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-ordinals-creators-look-for-fix-after-first-instance-of-shock-porn

Ordinals are being used for more than just NFT data.

Ordinals can store NFT data and bitcoin token data. There are several different bitcoin tokens in existence.

Here is the Bitcoin Token Standards list:
https://docs.bitcoints.org/

[BlackHatCoiner]

funny part is you are the one also telling people what to do. telling them to not propose a fix. telling people to go use another network

In which Universe? In the observable Universe, he acknowledges his opinion is as meaningless as yours. Opinions without implementation don't hold sway in this network. You can continue whining about "false consensus" for another 7 years, but you will have accomplished nothing. Verify it by examining the results of your wasted time here.

you know only the core devs can merge in a fix. and you dont want them to do it nor do you want people to ask them to

The Core devs are liable for Bitcoin Core. If you don't like how they develop, fork the client. If you don't like how consensus is formed, fork off the network. As I have already said, developers have more influence and reasoning in contention than laymen like you.

And for the record, you're the one who tells people what to do, because you're the only one who doesn't treat Bitcoin as the censorship resistant network it aims to be.

[franky1]

blackhat
your girlfriends narrative does not even align with blockdata or archived/active code.
pretending the memes are standard


heck even some of the devs are discussing things and not all are complying to the corporate roadmap mantra you promote

maybe instead of laying inbed with doomad, kissing ass..  you instead realise that doomad is the one with foolish idea's

if you think the only option is to be subserviant to 6 core maintainers or f**k off.. you really have been fooled into authoritarianism.
go on say it

"if you dont like iraq emigrate".. thats the only option you think people should have. rather than want something better

plus via this very topic and many like it. its not just me. even though you ignore everyone thus your view of people is limited there are thousands of people peed off with the exploit and want something done..

TRY TO READ. THEN LEARN. THEN READ AGAIN TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU LEARN

[Deftelbow]

It is excellent. Innovative and smart. It will help BTC's adoption. Haters gonna hate. But this is going to skyrocket.