How to check ordinal inscription that Bitcoin address owns

[libert19]

I don't get it.

Edit:

Finally got what I was looking for: https://ordiscan.com/

[1714904406]

1714904406

[1714904406]

1714904406

[franky1]

the ordinal image is inside the transaction of the creator. it does not move..

there is no bitcoin proof of ownership change. thus it stays with the creator transaction..

casey(the project manager) has a explorer that decides which destination he currently wants to suggest the ownership rights move to. but its transfer is not set in immutable data proofs. thus he can change his desired recipient with just a line of code(output 1 instead of 0).. it is not enforced by block data of any transfers of ownership the truly fixes it to an output

those purchasing what they think is ownership rights of the images. are not purchasing the meme
they are purchasing taint of a small amount of bitcoin.. but paying far more then the bitcoin price for said small amount of bitcoin

 

[franky1]

In short, use block explorer which support Ordinal protocol. https://ordinals.com/ and few others doesn't have feature to search by address, but you could use https://ordinals.hiro.so/.

those explorers do not interpret block data proofs. they only at website display code of the explorer choose to follow a output 0 path at explorer website code decision.. not blockdata proven linkage to the ordinal images

bitcoin uses blockchain data proof of satoshi transfers.. but doesnt have blockchain data proof of ordinals

even caseys v1 of ordinals (rare sats(pre v2: memes project)) does not prove the rarest single sat belongs to a certain output via blockchain proofs. the rarest sat could be displayed as passing to a different output by changing the explorer code. nothing in immutable blockchain data proves which rare sat of ordinal v1 belongs to which output

[larry_vw_1955]

even caseys v1 of ordinals (rare sats(pre v2: memes project)) does not prove the rarest single sat belongs to a certain output via blockchain proofs. the rarest sat could be displayed as passing to a different output by changing the explorer code. nothing in immutable blockchain data proves which rare sat of ordinal v1 belongs to which output

and yet with this glaring issue, no one even cares at all and they keep publishing junk to the blockchain. now over 500,000 bitcoin nft monkeys. this will never end on its own. that's for sure. 

[franky1]

most of that junk is not 500,000 people doing it.
its more like a less than dozen idiots thinking even if they can scam others to pay just $25+ per meme it will total up to make them millionaires.

the memes you see being sold for megabucks are not actually real sales. its the creator selling to himself to "price set" to fake value and fake demand. hoping idiot victims then pay premium for dead data.

total scam in short

there is another group of idiots that love the spam as its their agenda to not have many real transactions on bitcoins blockchain. they have wanted to not see "coffee amounts" onchain. then they didnt want more then 1mb blockspace(increase tx count). now they love deadweight spam reducing average tx counts. all because what they really love is making bitcoin expensive, slow and where normal transactions get rejected at unconfirmed mempool status where these crap memes fill up the mempool space to irritate people into hating bitcoin, just so the idiots can tell people to "f**k off to another network if they dont like it"

[larry_vw_1955]

most of that junk is not 500,000 people doing it.
its more like a less than dozen idiots thinking even if they can scam others to pay just $25+ per meme it will total up to make them millionaires.

so it only takes less than 12 people to bring bitcoin to its knees...i honestly think it's more than just 12 people maybe a couple hundred people that are uploading lots of them.

the memes you see being sold for megabucks are not actually real sales. its the creator selling to himself to "price set" to fake value and fake demand. hoping idiot victims then pay premium for dead data.

total scam in short

sounds like a way to scam people anonymously. i wonder how many people who bought those things realized they way overpaid.  

there is another group of idiots that love the spam as its their agenda to not have many real transactions on bitcoins blockchain. they have wanted to not see "coffee amounts" onchain. then they didnt want more then 1mb blockspace(increase tx count). now they love deadweight spam reducing average tx counts. all because what they really love is making bitcoin expensive, slow and where normal transactions get rejected at unconfirmed mempool status where these crap memes fill up the mempool space to irritate people into hating bitcoin, just so the idiots can tell people to "f**k off to another network if they dont like it"

i really believe this scenario. i know there are people doing that. not everyone but definitely some of them. they don't like bitcoin, they want to make a mockery of it and they'll do anything to do that, including paying small fees to put monkeys onto the blockchain...

[franky1]

most of that junk is not 500,000 people doing it.
its more like a less than dozen idiots thinking even if they can scam others to pay just $25+ per meme it will total up to make them millionaires.

so it only takes less than 12 people to bring bitcoin to its knees...i honestly think it's more than just 12 people maybe a couple hundred people that are uploading lots of them.

there are only X "groups" (normally one idiot pretending to be a company) who is the theme creator of a batch of memes..

and then there are the underling members which could be hundreds/thousands

but the members are the scam victim buyers

there is one creator who has a set of 10k memes of one theme
and a few other sets of hundreds of other memes

meaning one idiot has a few % of bitcoin memes he threw into the blockchain

i try to separate the meme creator from the duped victims of the scam. but yea we could consider that there are thousands of idiots involved (perpetrator and victim combined)

i have nothing against a real NFT system that uses file hash references(or public key reference as a true utility) and do it in a blockchain proof of transfer methods.. but ordinals is no way near being a NFT system
its a meme library of fixed/locked data. falsely scammed as being a NFT ownership claim

[larry_vw_1955]

i try to separate the meme creator from the duped victims of the scam. but yea we could consider that there are thousands of idiots involved (perpetrator and victim combined)

i get that but if you think about it, once the creator creates victims, some of them not sure what percentage of them but certainly some percentage becomes the victimizer by trying to unload their piece of crap onto someone else. through some nft marketplace. so the cycle continues ad nauseum until no greater fool exists i guess.  

i have nothing against a real NFT system that uses file hash references(or public key reference as a true utility) and do it in a blockchain proof of transfer methods.. but ordinals is no way near being a NFT system
its a meme library of fixed/locked data. falsely scammed as being a NFT ownership claim

but you would still have an issue with something like that existing on the bitcoin blockchain, i'm assuming. i guess that goes without saying? but i said it for you in case you forgot to mention it.

[franky1]

for ordinals. you cant move the meme. so the victim turn victimiser is not bloating more. its just selling dreams for sats. where the sats are not attached to anything provably ownable above that sat amount. thus they are not part of the bloat problem of dead weight. they are just selling sats for more then market price

..
as for a NFT system. if it was just using hashs of a file rather then a ntf of a file itself. the transactions would be as lean as a normal tx

morally id have issues about them over pricing said reference.. but thats capitalism/greed.*
technically the transactions wont be bloating up blockspace compared to the ordinal meme crap so i wouldnt mind

*id give it a "pfft, whatever idiot" rather than a full facepalm

as for the purpose of NFT utility. its being wasted on monkey memes rather than something really useful.


people just cant think passed their own personal greed to instead think of things of real utility for the masses. which could benefit them more overall later

[larry_vw_1955]

as for a NFT system. if it was just using hashs of a file rather then a ntf of a file itself. the transactions would be as lean as a normal tx

but it's still taking up block space  that could be used by real transactions where people are trying to send money so it will still drive up transaction fees.

technically the transactions wont be bloating up blockspace compared to the ordinal meme crap so i wouldnt mind

not bloating it up as much as if it didn't store the monkey but it would still be making it harder for normal transactions to get into blocks. so it's still not ideal.

as for the purpose of NFT utility. its being wasted on monkey memes rather than something really useful.


people just cant think passed their own personal greed to instead think of things of real utility for the masses. which could benefit them more overall later

wonder what satoshi would think about all of this. i have a feeling he wouldn't be too happy with it...

[franky1]

as for a NFT system. if it was just using hashs of a file rather then a ntf of a file itself. the transactions would be as lean as a normal tx

but it's still taking up block space  that could be used by real transactions where people are trying to send money so it will still drive up transaction fees.

technically the transactions wont be bloating up blockspace compared to the ordinal meme crap so i wouldnt mind

not bloating it up as much as if it didn't store the monkey but it would still be making it harder for normal transactions to get into blocks. so it's still not ideal.

for those smart enough to know how to make a real NFT hash system on bitcoin will see that the transaction size of a hash reference NFT is no bigger then the average size of normal transactions

thus no more nor less different to someone doing a normal bitcoin payment

im not condoning or desiring an NFT hash system. im just saying that if the current nft idiots were smart. they could actually do something alot leaner/thinner weight and alot less messy, and less irritating which will not even impact other users normal functionality. heck most wont even know the difference

but these ordinal meme spam dead weight crap is irritating and affecting other users costs and waiting times for transactions

a 160kb meme or a 4mb meme takes up the space of MANY potential normal payments

[larry_vw_1955]

for those smart enough to know how to make a real NFT hash system on bitcoin will see that the transaction size of a hash reference NFT is no bigger then the average size of normal transactions

thus no more nor less different to someone doing a normal bitcoin payment

that would be better than what we have now. no doubt about that...but there's a problem with that solution.

im not condoning or desiring an NFT hash system. im just saying that if the current nft idiots were smart. they could actually do something alot leaner/thinner weight and alot less messy, and less irritating which will not even impact other users normal functionality. heck most wont even know the difference

yes they would notice the difference and they wouldn't be spamming the blockchain mercilessly in that case. it's all about this on chain storage that has people foaming at the mouth i believe. take that way and the undesirable nft crowd goes elsewhere where they can wreak havoc and destruction.

but these ordinal meme spam dead weight crap is irritating and affecting other users costs and waiting times for transactions

a 160kb meme or a 4mb meme takes up the space of MANY potential normal payments

i ask again, i wonder what satoshi would think about all of this. i think he would be in agreement that something like this can't exist. there's no way satoshi says ordinals are ok...

[NotATether]

i ask again, i wonder what satoshi would think about all of this. i think he would be in agreement that something like this can't exist. there's no way satoshi says ordinals are ok...

Does it matter at this point? Bitcoin would not have survived past its infancy if everyone relied on decisions made by Nakamoto. It is for us to decide.

And since nobody can seem to reach a consensus, no action will be taken against it.

Developers, users and miners can't seem to unanimously agree on protocol-level issues (unlike social issues such as CSW).

[pooya87]

i ask again, i wonder what satoshi would think about all of this. i think he would be in agreement that something like this can't exist. there's no way satoshi says ordinals are ok...

Satoshi has already disagreed with this type of abuse in multiple places. From the whitepaper title where it calls bitcoin a payment system not a cloud storage to his clear stance against storing junk data (like DNS) on bitcoin blockchain.

But unfortunately because bitcoin core developers screwed up in implementation of Taproot soft fork, we ended up with an attack vector that is being exploited with the code-name Ordinals, and so far there isn't any serious work being done to mitigate that.

[garlonicon]

i ask again, i wonder what satoshi would think about all of this. i think he would be in agreement that something like this can't exist. there's no way satoshi says ordinals are ok...

You won't find the exact quote, because that thing didn't exist at that time (and things like colored coins were invented later). However, there are some quotes about using Bitcoin for other purposes than payments, and as far as I can find, Satoshi wrote only about separate network for those cases, for example in BitDNS:

Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.

Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately.  Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other.  BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.

The networks need to have separate fates.  BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

For me, that is sufficient to guess that Satoshi accepted using Bitcoin for other things than payments, but didn't want to put all of those things on-chain, because "piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale". And that is one of the reasons why ordinals as a concept may be accepted, but the way how it works may be totally wrong, because it will unnecessarily compete with other payments.

[rokok lokal]

Yes, This is important for anyone who uses Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies. If I'm not wrong To check ownership of Bitcoin addresses you can use block explorer. Block explorer is a website that allows you to view information about Bitcoin transactions and blocks.

When you look up a Bitcoin address in the block explorer, you can see all the transactions that have been sent to and from that address. This information is publicly available on the blockchain, which is a distributed ledger that records all Bitcoin transactions.

Apart from viewing transaction history, you can also check Bitcoin address balances in the block explorer. It will tell you how many Bitcoins are currently stored at that address.

[larry_vw_1955]

Does it matter at this point?

Bitcoin would not have survived past its infancy if everyone relied on decisions made by Nakamoto. It is for us to decide.

And since nobody can seem to reach a consensus, no action will be taken against it.

Developers, users and miners can't seem to unanimously agree on protocol-level issues (unlike social issues such as CSW).

that's quite a series of statements but ok  

[garlonicon]

I found another Satoshi reaction to uploading videos to the blockchain:

I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it.  I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.

That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...

That's one of the reasons for transaction fees.  There are other things we can do if necessary.

As you can see, it was not "yes, go on, upload it", but rather "fees are needed to prevent abusing the system". And I wonder what "other things" Satoshi wanted to do in case of spamming the blockchain.

[BlackHatCoiner]

sounds like a way to scam people anonymously. i wonder how many people who bought those things realized they way overpaid.

Depends on how you evaluate. In my opinion, any Ordinal sold for more than 0 sats is "overpaid" because I find absolutely no tangible essence. Someone who pays a million dollars for a rock jpeg clearly thinks differently.

As you can see, it was not "yes, go on, upload it", but rather "fees are needed to prevent abusing the system".

I can guess that the argument of pro-Ordinals is that no sidechain will ever have the same recognition and support as the main chain, and so storing files there ensures longer "lifespan".

[pooya87]

And I wonder what "other things" Satoshi wanted to do in case of spamming the blockchain.

There are a lot of ways in Bitcoin protocol that we don't "ban" something but make it more "expensive" as a discouragement for abuse or misuse. For example I recently answered a question about a rejected block, and that case was increasing the cost of sigops by 80 to discourage using P2MS, that is an example of making something "undesirable" more expensive hence discourage it.