Why was Ordinal NFTs created?

[BlackHatCoiner]

But since most (or maybe all) pool choose transaction based on highest TX fee rate, those people (who wish to store arbitrary data) pay similar TX fee rate with people who create transaction solely to send Bitcoin.

With the exception that regular users don't make a hundred median-size transactions every day, which is about the equivalent of an average Ordinal transaction. An ordinal owner pays the same rate, but pays more.

Or simply don't have resource to modify their software and perform test to make sure they always create valid block.

I wouldn't rely on this mindset. As I've said, there's an economy around Ordinals. Small, but it grants an income. We should expect the majority of pool owners to perform the necessary tests and software reviews.

[1714828342]

1714828342

[1714828342]

1714828342

[1714828342]

1714828342

[Wind_FURY]

The introduction of inscriptions on Bitcoin’s mainnet  made the creation of Ordinal NFTs on the bitcoin Blockchain. I have read lot of negative comments about the effects of Ordinal NFTs on Bitcoin Blockchain and so I would like to know why it was still created despite negative effects it can have,Although there are some positive comments, The negative comments are something that can cause stressing issues later on.

In short: greed. Some people got carried away with a possibility to sell monkey pics to gullible peeps, that's all. Miners got excited too as they're earning extra buck for processing spam transactions. Again, it's greed. 

Anyone could call it greed, but to put it more simply, it's actually just Incentivization. In a decentralized system such as Bitcoin, to have everything constantly working and sticking together, the miners must be incentivized to do their job, or be penalized if they failed or if they didn't do anything.

[philipma1957]

The introduction of inscriptions on Bitcoin’s mainnet  made the creation of Ordinal NFTs on the bitcoin Blockchain. I have read lot of negative comments about the effects of Ordinal NFTs on Bitcoin Blockchain and so I would like to know why it was still created despite negative effects it can have,Although there are some positive comments, The negative comments are something that can cause stressing issues later on.

In short: greed. Some people got carried away with a possibility to sell monkey pics to gullible peeps, that's all. Miners got excited too as they're earning extra buck for processing spam transactions. Again, it's greed.  

Anyone could call it greed, but to put it more simply, it's actually just Incentivization. In a decentralized system such as Bitcoin, to have everything constantly working and sticking together, the miners must be incentivized to do their job, or be penalized if they failed or if they didn't do anything.

Excellent post.


While my first thought is to bat-slap  serveria.com  for saying miners are greedy, you managed to make a much more intelligent reply.

As I type I am mining with 3 other people one 3 locations.

Due to mining we have built a 280 kwatt solar array. and a 45 kwatt solar array. These produce about 1.25 megawatts a day. This is real wealth created by BTC's financial incentives.

I love NFT's and Ordinals for the ability to continue to incentivize mining of BTC.

I am 66 I so wish I was 36 as I know mining coin with my partners will allow us to build more solar arrays as long as mining continues to sweeten the pot so to speak. If I was 30 years younger I would operate a bit differently.

I see all of this as Satoshi's idea of turning energy into coin.

So I am pro mining my biggest issue is many people do not see what I see. BTC could be used to help pay for 1000 megawatts of solar every year. Throughout  USA and rest of the world.

Below is great adventure in New Jersey Notice only ⅓ of the parking lots have solar.
One of my partners has the service contract to keep the panels they have running.
He has talked with them on and off about expansion to more of the parking lots. One of the talking points is they can earn money mining when the park closes from Jan to April.





Now we see mining for what it is watts turn into coin.
As solar business is real and working we rather BTC stay on top of things and figure ways to keep its rewards and fees for mining.

But to be honest scrypt algo since 2020 fall which is around 2.5 years has been better for us than BTC.

mining LTC/Doge makes more $$ per watt than mining BTC.

And here we have a thread with many people arguing against putting more reward/fee money for BTC

Our main business is not mining.

2 of us own warehouses
1 of us owns a solar business
1 of us me is a retired Navy veteran

So attacking ordinals and NFTs simple makes us diversify into Gpus and Scrypt.

We are very green and want to be more green. Rather than hurting us simply attack miners that do nothing to make the industry green.

one last thing is if all mining dies and all coins die, we will still have solar arrays with 20 years left on warranty making 1.25 megawatts a day which is about 1250 x 14 cents = 175 dollars a day in power or $63,875 a year

[Wind_FURY]

The introduction of inscriptions on Bitcoin’s mainnet  made the creation of Ordinal NFTs on the bitcoin Blockchain. I have read lot of negative comments about the effects of Ordinal NFTs on Bitcoin Blockchain and so I would like to know why it was still created despite negative effects it can have,Although there are some positive comments, The negative comments are something that can cause stressing issues later on.

In short: greed. Some people got carried away with a possibility to sell monkey pics to gullible peeps, that's all. Miners got excited too as they're earning extra buck for processing spam transactions. Again, it's greed.  

Anyone could call it greed, but to put it more simply, it's actually just Incentivization. In a decentralized system such as Bitcoin, to have everything constantly working and sticking together, the miners must be incentivized to do their job, or be penalized if they failed or if they didn't do anything.

Excellent post.


While my first thought is to bat-slap  serveria.com  for saying miners are greedy, you managed to make a much more intelligent reply.

With all due respect, a bat-slap doesn't encourage learning ser. I believe many people make such comments because there's simply a misunderstanding on how and why Bitcoin actually works. I also make the same mistake sometimes, and I need to be taught, not bat-slapped.

As I type I am mining with 3 other people one 3 locations.

Due to mining we have built a 280 kwatt solar array. and a 45 kwatt solar array. These produce about 1.25 megawatts a day. This is real wealth created by BTC's financial incentives.

I love NFT's and Ordinals for the ability to continue to incentivize mining of BTC.

I am 66 I so wish I was 36 as I know mining coin with my partners will allow us to build more solar arrays as long as mining continues to sweeten the pot so to speak. If I was 30 years younger I would operate a bit differently.

I see all of this as Satoshi's idea of turning energy into coin.

So I am pro mining my biggest issue is many people do not see what I see. BTC could be used to help pay for 1000 megawatts of solar every year. Throughout  USA and rest of the world.

Below is great adventure in New Jersey Notice only ⅓ of the parking lots have solar.
One of my partners has the service contract to keep the panels they have running.
He has talked with them on and off about expansion to more of the parking lots. One of the talking points is they can earn money mining when the park closes from Jan to April.





Now we see mining for what it is watts turn into coin.
As solar business is real and working we rather BTC stay on top of things and figure ways to keep its rewards and fees for mining.

But to be honest scrypt algo since 2020 fall which is around 2.5 years has been better for us than BTC.

mining LTC/Doge makes more $$ per watt than mining BTC.

And here we have a thread with many people arguing against putting more reward/fee money for BTC

Our main business is not mining.

2 of us own warehouses
1 of us owns a solar business
1 of us me is a retired Navy veteran

So attacking ordinals and NFTs simple makes us diversify into Gpus and Scrypt.

We are very green and want to be more green. Rather than hurting us simply attack miners that do nothing to make the industry green.

one last thing is if all mining dies and all coins die, we will still have solar arrays with 20 years left on warranty making 1.25 megawatts a day which is about 1250 x 14 cents = 175 dollars a day in power or $63,875 a year

But with Ordinals bringing more demand for block space = higher fees, and possibly also bringing more demand for Bitcoin itself, would you say that "mining LTC/Doge makes more $$ per watt than mining BTC" is more seasonal?

[philipma1957]

To all mods

Please note franky1 is not allowed to post here and placed this in a different section.

Lots of info here. I am tired long day mining driving and real world gear stuff.

I am going to sleep on this.

Please do not delete this

I would like to try to unwind it and understand it.  Thank you.

Cons - Ordinals may be used as an attack vector for spamming the network, it stores dick pics and fart sounds in the blockchain, and it could open other attack unknown vectors.

a. most miners(asic/workers) dont get fee's, the pools keep amounts equal/above fee's
b. ordinals dont pay fair rate tx fees anyway many are seen paying 0.5sat/byte instead of the rest paying 15sat/byte
c. taking upto all blockspace for one meme does not help utility of bitcoin. it annoys people that 2000tx dont get into the next block but the 1 meme did
d. ordinals in NO way has helped bitcoin. its not even an NFT
e. ordinals that dont get into blocks still push pre-confirm transaction out of potentially getting into blocks by ordinals filling up mempools thus forcing other tx out of mempools when mempools breach a X00mb limit set by their nodes

mining pools take a cut
EG
antpool has two offerings
a. PPLN antpool keeps the tx fee's.. workers take the blockreward
b. PPS+ antpool takes 2% of fees and 4% of blockreward


PPS+ is the offering where a asic worker 'might'(their wish/hope) gain something from fee's, by asking for a bit of the fee's instead of the PPLN option taking the fee's

lets imagine a block of 4mb of 1 meme paying its 0.5sat/byte
thats 0.02btc
antpool(PPS+) takes 0.0004 of tx fee 0.25 of block reward (0.2504 total)

simple math: meme gives 0.02 into the pot. but antpool cuts out 0.254 from the pot. thus workers lose out more if they opt to want a fee share

meaning in both cases antpool keep more then the tx fee if you add it all up and take their cut away in both situations because

b.(PPS+) the fee's from the ordinal are 0.02 but antpool took 0.254 away from asic workser
a.(PPLN) antpool took the 0.02 of the tx fee
thus those asic workers dont gain from increased fees they might aswel just PPLN and just take their share of only the block reward

yep fee's would need to be for a normal average tx payment filled block of 1.5mb be paying 17sat/byte to BREAK EVEN to what a pool owner takes as their cut..
for the workers to then NEED MORE THEN 17sat/byte to then be see a noticable difference to the shared income on PPS+ they get after the pool owners cut

however an average tx of 500bytes@17sat/byte=8500sat =$2.41 which.. is making people not want to use bitcoin as much for payments. thus spiting the users inspite of the workers

what workers actually prefer. is not a fee market rise to get income. but the spot price market rise.. though lemming that want to advertise other networks prefer fee rises to make people hate using bitcoin

 I am going to move this to the nft/ordinal thread.


I read this a few times.

I bolded his example of a co opted block..


lets say the pool in his example does 20 blocks in a day.

10 of which are flooded with memes and 10 of which are not.

it is much like my thread done back in 2017.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2634505.msg26809430#msg26809430

So it looks like a strong incentive to not mine with antpool.

you could do a small pool that pays the fees and a pool like viabtc that gives 98% of the fees.

A lot depends if ordinals jack up fees like the 2017 .

Fees need to be large enough in the non ordinal blocks to make ordinals boost mining earnings

Ie 144 blocks 24 with shitty ordinals that follow franky1s idea but 100 with high fees say .4 under current
6.25 reward .

a block with 6.25 + .4 due to other blocks being filled with ordinals means miners get .
96% of the 6.25 and 98% of the .4 fees thats a win for miners but much like 2017 fees will get stupid high.

All of which points to a day of reckoning in the 2056 time slot . I pick that date as I am 99 so I will have reckoned with death 💀 (most likely)

So if ordinals don’t work
and if nfts don’t work
and if frozen stale never used btc is not reclaimed like banks do
the only hope for btc is LN

and LN looks like off book no block chain theft of coins by exchanges like coin base.

It appears BTC will really struggle without a new gimmick. by 2056.

[larry_vw_1955]

It appears BTC will really struggle without a new gimmick. by 2056.

maybe the new gimmick will be to change to a constant block reward. the block reward going to zero is the problem for miners right? they don't like that. yes it is inflationary possible to *some* degree but if we're being realistic most people that use ethereum don't realize that its block reward doesn't go to 0 you just keep those type of details under the hood away from them and they'll be fine. 

[philipma1957]

It appears BTC will really struggle without a new gimmick. by 2056.

maybe the new gimmick will be to change to a constant block reward. the block reward going to zero is the problem for miners right? they don't like that.

well it could will be interesting to see if a good fix happens or if scrypt/doge becomes the lead algo down the road.

[NotATether]

It appears BTC will really struggle without a new gimmick. by 2056.

maybe the new gimmick will be to change to a constant block reward. the block reward going to zero is the problem for miners right? they don't like that.

well it could will be interesting to see if a good fix happens or if scrypt/doge becomes the lead algo down the road.

Why don't we try that? Let Doge or LTC pilot a fixed-sized block reward after a bunch of halvings (not just a few years after the coin is created like Monero did because that wouldn't allow the mining economy to expand first). Actually, better if Litecoin or DASH tries this first as Doge will probably never make any innovations besides memes on Twitter.

Ordinals in a way were piloted on ETH before someone decided to reproduce them here, so the logic would be similar.

[Wind_FURY]

It appears BTC will really struggle without a new gimmick. by 2056.

maybe the new gimmick will be to change to a constant block reward. the block reward going to zero is the problem for miners right? they don't like that. yes it is inflationary possible to *some* degree but if we're being realistic most people that use ethereum don't realize that its block reward doesn't go to 0 you just keep those type of details under the hood away from them and they'll be fine. 

Or if just for a "gimmick", it's probably better to build another chain, get community consensus behind it, and have its token merged mined with Bitcoin to help with miner revenue?

That's better than making Bitcoin inflationary, no?

[larry_vw_1955]

Or if just for a "gimmick", it's probably better to build another chain, get community consensus behind it, and have its token merged mined with Bitcoin to help with miner revenue?

you mean create another sh**chain that no one cares about or wants to hold in their wallet?

That's better than making Bitcoin inflationary, no?

i'm not sure it is. but who says it would definitely make bitcoin be inflationary anyway? it might not have that much of an effect.

[Wind_FURY]

Or if just for a "gimmick", it's probably better to build another chain, get community consensus behind it, and have its token merged mined with Bitcoin to help with miner revenue?

you mean create another sh**chain that no one cares about or wants to hold in their wallet?

I said that there should be community consensus behind it, or else, it will just be another shitchain with a shitcoin. Plus you said that a "new gimmick" was perhaps required. That's merely another suggestion for a "new gimmick".

That's better than making Bitcoin inflationary, no?

i'm not sure it is. but who says it would definitely make bitcoin be inflationary anyway? it might not have that much of an effect.

But in breaking the social contract of having Bitcoin's supply limited at 21,000,000, you risk another split within the Bitcoin community.

[d5000]

Or if just for a "gimmick", it's probably better to build another chain, get community consensus behind it, and have its token merged mined with Bitcoin to help with miner revenue?

You could have the best of both worlds (altcoins/Bitcoin) if you design such a coin as a Bitcoin sidechain, i.e. with the ability to transfer Bitcoin's value on it and with a 2-way-peg with BTC, but with an own mining token.

Sidechains are seeing some development lately and aren't limited anymore to static federation-based chains, see Stacks. The problem of Stacks is that its token is premined, so it's conceptually centralized (not technically).

If we had a "decentralized Stacks" with community consensus, or even better several chains in this manner, we could not only use it for things like Ordinals, but also for smaller payments, which could increase adoption due to smaller fees.

This would mean the benefit for miners would be "doubled": first, they of course get the static block reward of the sidechain's "native" coin, and second, the value proposition of the whole chain ecosystem would be stronger, so it's likely that the mining reward for Bitcoin's main chain, even if it becomes very small, provides enough incentive for safety.

[larry_vw_1955]

I said that there should be community consensus behind it, or else, it will just be another shitchain with a shitcoin. Plus you said that a "new gimmick" was perhaps required. That's merely another suggestion for a "new gimmick".

do you really think that new gimmick would have a feasible chance at being adopted or having any affect whatsoever? drastic times call for drastic measures. a little side chain probably wouldn't be good enough.

But in breaking the social contract of having Bitcoin's supply limited at 21,000,000, you risk another split within the Bitcoin community.

that's the downside of my gimmick but i think one of the groups would end up being the minority chain and quickly forgotten about just like ethereum classic...

[Wind_FURY]

I said that there should be community consensus behind it, or else, it will just be another shitchain with a shitcoin. Plus you said that a "new gimmick" was perhaps required. That's merely another suggestion for a "new gimmick".

do you really think that new gimmick would have a feasible chance at being adopted or having any affect whatsoever? drastic times call for drastic measures. a little side chain probably wouldn't be good enough.

I honestly don't know, I'm merely suggesting another "gimmick" after the "gimmick" that you suggested. What I do personally believe is it might have a better chance of getting social consensus than breaking Bitcoin's social contract.

But in breaking the social contract of having Bitcoin's supply limited at 21,000,000, you risk another split within the Bitcoin community.

that's the downside of my gimmick but i think one of the groups would end up being the minority chain and quickly forgotten about just like ethereum classic...

Anyone can choose to ignore the other chain if they want, but miners can't, and some users won't, ignore its value because it's what will be maintaining Bitcoin's security.

Or if just for a "gimmick", it's probably better to build another chain, get community consensus behind it, and have its token merged mined with Bitcoin to help with miner revenue?

You could have the best of both worlds (altcoins/Bitcoin) if you design such a coin as a Bitcoin sidechain, i.e. with the ability to transfer Bitcoin's value on it and with a 2-way-peg with BTC, but with an own mining token.

Sidechains are seeing some development lately and aren't limited anymore to static federation-based chains, see Stacks. The problem of Stacks is that its token is premined, so it's conceptually centralized (not technically).

If we had a "decentralized Stacks" with community consensus, or even better several chains in this manner, we could not only use it for things like Ordinals, but also for smaller payments, which could increase adoption due to smaller fees.

This would mean the benefit for miners would be "doubled": first, they of course get the static block reward of the sidechain's "native" coin, and second, the value proposition of the whole chain ecosystem would be stronger, so it's likely that the mining reward for Bitcoin's main chain, even if it becomes very small, provides enough incentive for safety.

What' your opinion on Drivechains/BIP-300?

[larry_vw_1955]

I honestly don't know, I'm merely suggesting another "gimmick" after the "gimmick" that you suggested. What I do personally believe is it might have a better chance of getting social consensus than breaking Bitcoin's social contract.

but there has to be a reason people would use a gimmick. no one wants their nft stored on some sidechain. that's why people use ordinals so it can be on the main chain. i think there's more than 1 million ordinals now or coming very soon.  

But in breaking the social contract of having Bitcoin's supply limited at 21,000,000, you risk another split within the Bitcoin community.

honestly it wouldn't suprise me if they raised that cap at some point or introduced some tail reward. look at society how they can never get things right and have to always invent new laws and regulations even though society has existed for over 100 years...some of them are in response to the way the world has changed, some not.

[philipma1957]

I still say the 'frozen' btc could be folded back into the reward system.

If an address never makes a withdrawal it lose its contents after 50 years.

Thus is there are 1 or 2 million lost frozen coins they would feed back into rewards.

I have mentioned this idea more than once.

But many think is not the solution.

You never pass 21 million coins

you stay at 21 million with 1 or 2 million being redistributed.

[d5000]

What' your opinion on Drivechains/BIP-300?

I'm following them since a long time ago (probably 2017) and their idea is extremely interesting. I generally agree with Paul Sztorc that the risks should be manageable.

It's cool that they are doing alpha tests with some "clone" blockchains. But I have currently not too much hope that the "ACK" opcode (i.e. the "hashrate escrow" mechanism) gets added to the Bitcoin code in the short to mid term.

Thus I think in the short term, "dynamic federations" like Stacks and Nomic are what's possible today - only that both rely on premined tokens and thus they're not decentralized solutions for me.

I also have some hope about rollups being possible soon (see here for a concept). They could drastically reduce the footprint of payment transactions. Perhaps they could be combined with the "data sidechain" concept, i.e. you would store an Ordinals NFT in the rollup-sidechain and for all related mainchain activity (e.g. buying and selling the NFT for BTC) you would once commit a hash and a pointer to the sidechain location to the mainchain. Haven't thought about that in depth though.

[larry_vw_1955]

I still say the 'frozen' btc could be folded back into the reward system.

i've also proposed this idea in the past here on the forum but people don't like it.

If an address never makes a withdrawal it lose its contents after 50 years.

i had said 100 years but even if we say 500 years, someone is inevitbly still going to have an issue with it simply because they think bitcoin should be able to be passed down for generations infinitely many times without ever being touched.

Thus is there are 1 or 2 million lost frozen coins they would feed back into rewards.

i see nothing wrong with it myself. that way we know that bitcoin is neither inflationary or deflationary which is best.

I have mentioned this idea more than once.

But many think is not the solution.

right, because they want other people to lose access to their coins so that their coins become more valuable forever.

You never pass 21 million coins

you stay at 21 million with 1 or 2 million being redistributed.

i wouldn't have an issue with that. think of it like replacing worn out currency but not adding any extra. the only people that would oppose this type of structure are people that hope to get rich off of other peoples' misfortune of losing their bitcoin through whatever means...

[vjudeu]

you would once commit a hash and a pointer to the sidechain location to the mainchain

You don't need even that. If you have some data, and you want to connect them with some transaction, you don't need to increase the size of your on-chain transaction. It should look in the same way, then it will be very hard to censor, and then you can reveal your data after getting enough confirmations, then nobody will revert it easily.

For example, if you create "OP_RETURN <data>" as a TapScript, then it will never be pushed on-chain. Then, your Taproot address will be different, but everything else in your transaction will stay the same, no additional fields for hashes are needed. However, you can go even further: if you want to have it in your inputs, instead of your outputs, you can take your signature, tweak your R-value, and hide your data there, in the same way as Taproot keys are tweaked. Then, you can use it anywhere, every OP_CHECKSIG or similar operation is then your entry point, where you can hide your data inside your signature, and reveal it later.

Also, if sidechain for Ordinals will be supported on consensus level, it can be constructed to make blocks smaller in non-upgraded nodes. For example, if you have witness data with 4 MB limit, then non-witness data still has 1 MB limit. And if you look at those blocks from the perspective of non-Segwit node, then you will see that blocks are smaller, not bigger, because each four bytes of witness data decrease a room for non-Segwit data by one byte. So, if you have this huge Taproot transaction with 3.94 MB of witness data, then it takes 984.67 kvB, when you count virtual bytes. And that leaves something around 16 kB for non-witness data, then from the perspective of non-upgraded nodes, that is the size of the whole block. And for sidechains, it could be similar: if additional data will be also counted, then by moving things to sidechain commitments, blocks will have lower weight, because of those limits.

[Wind_FURY]

I honestly don't know, I'm merely suggesting another "gimmick" after the "gimmick" that you suggested. What I do personally believe is it might have a better chance of getting social consensus than breaking Bitcoin's social contract.

but there has to be a reason people would use a gimmick. no one wants their nft stored on some sidechain. that's why people use ordinals so it can be on the main chain. i think there's more than 1 million ordinals now or coming very soon.  

Confused. Are we talking about Bitcoin's security provided by the incentivization of miners through block rewards, or Ordinals. Our discussion started with this post of yours, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5446379.msg62070560#msg62070560

But in breaking the social contract of having Bitcoin's supply limited at 21,000,000, you risk another split within the Bitcoin community.

honestly it wouldn't suprise me if they raised that cap at some point or introduced some tail reward. look at society how they can never get things right and have to always invent new laws and regulations even though society has existed for over 100 years...some of them are in response to the way the world has changed, some not.

They probably will if it's life or death for Bitcoin, but in my opinion, the tail reward paid in another chain that's merge-mined with Bitcoin, IF implemented securely and IF gets social consensus, would be a compromise. It will continue to incentivize the miners without breaking the social contract.