Why was Ordinal NFTs created?

[larry_vw_1955]

In any argument you can bring up any arbitrary condition and then try to make your conclusion. The strong argument is if you first explain your arbitrary condition and why it can happen first then try to extend it to your conclusion.

well after thinking about it, i realize that just because bitcoin were to devalue wouldn't necessarily mean fiat would also devalue. for example, say ordinals really takes off and becomes the main use case for bitcoin. and other people abandon bitcoin because they don't like nfts so bitcoin price goes down because all its being used for is storing monkey pictures. that wouldn't affect the us dollar at all.

In here you first have to explain what can cause both fiat and bitcoin to devalue at the same time.

bitcoin has risk cases that are unique to it which are not shared by fiat. for example anything that caused a disruption in the internet would affect the price of bitcoin.  and not in a positive way. the longer the outage lasted, the lower bitcoin would go. until it reached 0. fiat existed long before the internet and could exist long after it if necessary i would think.

in 2056

rewards will be a lot lower.

0.0244xxx make  fees higher  0.1756 you are at 0.20 means 1,000,000 a coin is a 200,000 block value

which does not work.

so you're saying in order to keep the same block value, bitcoin would need to go up to $1,000,000 per BTC by 2056. that doesn't bode well for bitcoin.  of course, the other way to get the block value to the same level is with much much higher fees but who is going to want that? no one! and no one would use it except rich people if that was the case...

[1714726956]

1714726956

[1714726956]

1714726956

[philipma1957]

In any argument you can bring up any arbitrary condition and then try to make your conclusion. The strong argument is if you first explain your arbitrary condition and why it can happen first then try to extend it to your conclusion.

well after thinking about it, i realize that just because bitcoin were to devalue wouldn't necessarily mean fiat would also devalue. for example, say ordinals really takes off and becomes the main use case for bitcoin. and other people abandon bitcoin because they don't like nfts so bitcoin price goes down because all its being used for is storing monkey pictures. that wouldn't affect the us dollar at all.

In here you first have to explain what can cause both fiat and bitcoin to devalue at the same time.

bitcoin has risk cases that are unique to it which are not shared by fiat. for example anything that caused a disruption in the internet would affect the price of bitcoin.  and not in a positive way. the longer the outage lasted, the lower bitcoin would go. until it reached 0. fiat existed long before the internet and could exist long after it if necessary i would think.

in 2056

rewards will be a lot lower.

0.0244xxx make  fees higher  0.1756 you are at 0.20 means 1,000,000 a coin is a 200,000 block value

which does not work.

so you're saying in order to keep the same block value, bitcoin would need to go up to $1,000,000 per BTC by 2056. that doesn't bode well for bitcoin.  of course, the other way to get the block value to the same level is with much much higher fees but who is going to want that? no one! and no one would use it except rich people if that was the case...

Yeah and .1756 in fees with  blocks doing  500 tx  means .1756 x 1 million = 175,600 dollars in fees or $351 a transaction.

So we need adjustments. Franky1 likes a bigger tx section we can go to 32mil vs 2 mill or 4 mill that would mean maybe 5000 tx in a block or

175,600/5000 = $35.12  a tx. which would be maybe 3 or 4 usd in 2023 money.

but block size needs to be higher.

Should be fun to see it works its way out

[larry_vw_1955]

Yeah and .1756 in fees with  blocks doing  500 tx  means .1756 x 1 million = 175,600 dollars in fees or $351 a transaction.

if that ever happens then no one will be able to afford to buy bitcoin.

So we need adjustments. Franky1 likes a bigger tx section we can go to 32mil vs 2 mill or 4 mill that would mean maybe 5000 tx in a block or

yes it does sound like there's a reckoning day coming where some type of adjustment will need to be made. or else the security of the bitcoin network will be going down by alot. due to miners not participating as much.

175,600/5000 = $35.12  a tx. which would be maybe 3 or 4 usd in 2023 money.

imagine if minimum wage jobs paid $150 per hour. that's what it would take for that to make sense.

[CreativeCat]

Ordinal NFTs came into existence because of the introduction of inscriptions on Bitcoin's mainnet. The idea behind creating these NFTs on the Bitcoin blockchain was to take advantage of its established infrastructure and security while offering a unique way to represent and trade digital assets. Now, I understand that there have been some negative comments floating around, expressing concerns about the impact of Ordinal NFTs on the Bitcoin blockchain. It's important to remember that whenever a new technology emerges, there are bound to be varying opinions and debates. However, the creators of Ordinal NFTs probably saw potential benefits in using the Bitcoin blockchain, such as its reliability, decentralized nature, and large user base. Despite the negative comments, there are positive aspects to consider as well. For instance, Ordinal NFTs could enhance accessibility and interoperability, opening up new possibilities for digital asset ownership and exchange. It's crucial for ongoing discussions to address any concerns and ensure that the technology grows sustainably, striking a balance between innovation and maintaining the integrity of the underlying blockchain.

[larry_vw_1955]

Ordinal NFTs came into existence because of the introduction of inscriptions on Bitcoin's mainnet.

but ordinals was not put through any type of standardization/bip process.

The idea behind creating these NFTs on the Bitcoin blockchain was to take advantage of its established infrastructure and security while offering a unique way to represent and trade digital assets.

there's tons of blockchains where you can do that.why not use one of them which are specifically tailored for nfts, in that they were designed to support them, not just someone found a way to mimic them.

Now, I understand that there have been some negative comments floating around, expressing concerns about the impact of Ordinal NFTs on the Bitcoin blockchain. It's important to remember that whenever a new technology emerges, there are bound to be varying opinions and debates.

you're being overly generous to ordinals by referring to it as a "new technology". i would call it a cheap hack. but that's just my opinion.

However, the creators of Ordinal NFTs probably saw potential benefits in using the Bitcoin blockchain, such as its reliability, decentralized nature, and large user base. Despite the negative comments, there are positive aspects to consider as well.

maybe you have a misconception because you speak as though a group of developers got together and hammered out a protocol to stick into bitcoin to support storing monkeys on the blockchain. and then put it up to a vote to make sure everyone had their say. when in reality it was nothing like that. just one guy sitting athome in his underwear that came up with a cheap hack exploiting a loophole in bitcoin that could be patched in the future. and put an end to his little scheme.

For instance, Ordinal NFTs could enhance accessibility and interoperability, opening up new possibilities for digital asset ownership and exchange. It's crucial for ongoing discussions to address any concerns and ensure that the technology grows sustainably, striking a balance between innovation and maintaining the integrity of the underlying blockchain.

ordinals is not a technology IMO, it's just a cheap hack.

[Wind_FURY]

In any argument you can bring up any arbitrary condition and then try to make your conclusion. The strong argument is if you first explain your arbitrary condition and why it can happen first then try to extend it to your conclusion.

well after thinking about it, i realize that just because bitcoin were to devalue wouldn't necessarily mean fiat would also devalue. for example, say ordinals really takes off and becomes the main use case for bitcoin. and other people abandon bitcoin because they don't like nfts so bitcoin price goes down because all its being used for is storing monkey pictures. that wouldn't affect the us dollar at all.

In here you first have to explain what can cause both fiat and bitcoin to devalue at the same time.

bitcoin has risk cases that are unique to it which are not shared by fiat. for example anything that caused a disruption in the internet would affect the price of bitcoin.  and not in a positive way. the longer the outage lasted, the lower bitcoin would go. until it reached 0. fiat existed long before the internet and could exist long after it if necessary i would think.

in 2056

rewards will be a lot lower.

0.0244xxx make  fees higher  0.1756 you are at 0.20 means 1,000,000 a coin is a 200,000 block value

which does not work.

so you're saying in order to keep the same block value, bitcoin would need to go up to $1,000,000 per BTC by 2056. that doesn't bode well for bitcoin.  of course, the other way to get the block value to the same level is with much much higher fees but who is going to want that? no one! and no one would use it except rich people if that was the case...

Yeah and .1756 in fees with  blocks doing  500 tx  means .1756 x 1 million = 175,600 dollars in fees or $351 a transaction.

So we need adjustments. Franky1 likes a bigger tx section we can go to 32mil vs 2 mill or 4 mill that would mean maybe 5000 tx in a block or

175,600/5000 = $35.12  a tx. which would be maybe 3 or 4 usd in 2023 money.

but block size needs to be higher.

Should be fun to see it works its way out

What are your opinions on having a "Miner Chain" issuing "Miner Coins" that's merge mined with Bitcoin and, in practice, continues miners' block rewards forever. Let's pretend that it has the whole community's support.

I believe it could be another form of an increase in block size, in that, miners would need to process more data, no?

[larry_vw_1955]

What are your opinions on having a "Miner Chain" issuing "Miner Coins" that's merge mined with Bitcoin and, in practice, continues miners' block rewards forever.

who are miners going to sell their miner chain coins to?

Let's pretend that it has the whole community's support.

that's a big assumption.

I believe it could be another form of an increase in block size, in that, miners would need to process more data, no?

what would be the purpose of the miner chain other than to give miners more income?

[Kryptowerk]

Still more negative comments about Bitcoin Ordinal NFTs. Bitcoin core has a community, don't the community accept an update first before it is added to Bitcoin Blockchain?

I'm not an expert, but from what I understand Ordinals resulted from an unintended consequence. It's not like Taproot allowed NFTs by design and everyone accepted it. Taproot got ride of a size limit, see ETFBitcoin's comment above:

"While i agree most Ordinals TX can be considered as spam, the problem isn't Taproot itself but rather removal of several soft limitation (mainly 10K script size limit) for Taproot address/script."

The guy who created Ordinals realized Taproot left open a hack in which he could cram unintended arbitrary data into transactions. It's basically a spam attack vector that the devs/community didn't think about when Taproot was implemented.

So no, the community did not accept the ability to make Ordinal NFTs because it was an unintended consequence of changes made in the Taproot upgrade.

Thanks for your comment. Exactly this!
I highlighted the main important thing about this "is it censorship to hard-fork out of ordinals?" debate -> If you create something with a certain intention, and unintentionally it can be ABUSED to do something else that the majority of users don't agree with, or even worse feel attacked by, you cannot simply call it censorship. It's getting rid of a bug.
If a tiny minority agrees with this bug, they can still run along with it - but it's gonna be a different product, in this case a different chain.

There was never a consensus (bip) decision about its implementation. It's a hack that gets in the way with most people's intentions for Bitcoin which are transactions of value (BTC).

[d5000]

Just an observation: Now (in late April/early May 2023) the focus of the Ordinals community seems to have been directed to smaller inscriptions like BRC-20 tokens which could already have been achieved without Taproot because they're definitely below the 10K script size limit.

(BRC-20 tokens are basically tokens like those possible with Omni or Counterparty, only that they're using Ordinals to store a JSON text file with the parameters of each token/transaction. I'm still wondering why they use that silly and ultra-inefficient approach).

Now these small inscriptions are causing fees to grow even more than the first big Ordinals wave in February/March. The reason is actually simple: storing a 50K picture with 10 sat/bytes is already expensive, but a small token transfer of no more than 300-400 bytes is perhaps even possible with 100 sat/bytes.

This could lead me to conclude that the bigger Inscription transactions aren't really the problem for the current blockchain bloat. The problem are periods of extremely high blockchain activity when some kind of "hype" is going on, regardless of the size of the individual transactions. And such a hype could have been already possible with pre-Taproot rules.

So I think the solution is not hard forking into a new limit. Instead sidechains should be made finally possible, because these could provide enough space to get rid of the problems when these "hypes" arise.

With Stacks providing already a relatively descentralized method for sidechains, why not fork Stacks and use a decentralized (non-premined) merged-mined token to power a sidechain supported explicitly by the Bitcoin community, to make transactions smooth again?

(PS: Reading the last posts, isn't this exactly your idea @Wind_FURY?)

[NotFuzzyWarm]

Now these small inscriptions are causing fees to grow even more than the first big Ordinals wave in February/March. The reason is actually simple: storing a 50K picture with 10 sat/bytes is already expensive, but a small token transfer of no more than 300-400 bytes is perhaps even possible with 100 sat/bytes.

This could lead me to conclude that the bigger Inscription transactions aren't really the problem for the current blockchain bloat. The problem are periods of extremely high blockchain activity when some kind of "hype" is going on, regardless of the size of the individual transactions. And such a hype could have been already possible with pre-Taproot rules.

Fitting in perfectly with that is this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5449752.msg62190211#msg62190211 from the Mining area. My guess is that the parties eintioned in that are behind the mass of tiny Tx's with huge fees attached. It has also been pointed out that there are just a few wallets receiving the Tx's and that often the wallets are emptied by sending the collected BTC to burn addresses. WTF? Why on earth...  

edit: from a few posts up in that thread

Most of the energy going into it is like "look I can waste my money and also spend way too much on fee per bytes even though no one is forcing me to by any means necessary". Kind of like spending a fuck ton of money on food with gold on it so you can post it on instagram to like 200~ followers or something. That kind of shit is clogging up society in many ways not just Bitcoin but ultimately theres no magic trick behind it. Pretty much all these things they are paying for will become worthless just like all other NFTs even ones collected by Celebrity Douchebags https://www.sportskeeda.com/esports/news-logan-paul-s-623k-2021-nft-now-worth-10-here-s .

For the record yes Logan Paul is generally irrelevant even when he is mentioned in something and he certainly is not a blockchain wizard or educated in anything useful. However it goes to show that even a guy with a billion blind young rich followers cannot sell this absolute crap to anyone. It will die slowly or fast depending on how much money the buyers have and how many drug addictions the sellers have.

Most of the energy going into it is like "look I can waste my money and also spend way too much on fee per bytes even though no one is forcing me to by any means necessary". Kind of like spending a fuck ton of money on food with gold on it so you can post it on instagram to like 200~ followers or something. That kind of shit is clogging up society in many ways not just Bitcoin but ultimately theres no magic trick behind it. Pretty much all these things they are paying for will become worthless just like all other NFTs even ones collected by Celebrity Douchebags https://www.sportskeeda.com/esports/news-logan-paul-s-623k-2021-nft-now-worth-10-here-s .

sums it up rather well.

[pooya87]

So I think the solution is not hard forking into a new limit. Instead sidechains should be made finally possible, because these could provide enough space to get rid of the problems when these "hypes" arise.

The day the Ordinals Attack started, I said it has to be stopped and moved off-chain. It is good to see others are coming to the same conclusion!

why not fork Stacks and use a decentralized (non-premined) merged-mined token to power a sidechain supported explicitly by the Bitcoin community, to make transactions smooth again?

I personally believe the reason why they refused to use a side-chain (even though other solutions existed) is because they wanted to gain maximum hype possible for their scams. We know things like RSK existed but if they created a token in those platforms, they wouldn't have been able to get the same level of hype hence the same exposure. That meant a failed scam.

But creating it on mainnet by exploiting the protocol and making a lot of people angry gave them a TON of exposure hence the hype and the maximum number of "victims" to rip off.

That's why they will never use any sidechains ever.

[Wind_FURY]

Just an observation: Now (in late April/early May 2023) the focus of the Ordinals community seems to have been directed to smaller inscriptions like BRC-20 tokens which could already have been achieved without Taproot because they're definitely below the 10K script size limit.

(BRC-20 tokens are basically tokens like those possible with Omni or Counterparty, only that they're using Ordinals to store a JSON text file with the parameters of each token/transaction. I'm still wondering why they use that silly and ultra-inefficient approach).

Now these small inscriptions are causing fees to grow even more than the first big Ordinals wave in February/March. The reason is actually simple: storing a 50K picture with 10 sat/bytes is already expensive, but a small token transfer of no more than 300-400 bytes is perhaps even possible with 100 sat/bytes.

This could lead me to conclude that the bigger Inscription transactions aren't really the problem for the current blockchain bloat. The problem are periods of extremely high blockchain activity when some kind of "hype" is going on, regardless of the size of the individual transactions. And such a hype could have been already possible with pre-Taproot rules.

So I think the solution is not hard forking into a new limit. Instead sidechains should be made finally possible, because these could provide enough space to get rid of the problems when these "hypes" arise.

With Stacks providing already a relatively descentralized method for sidechains, why not fork Stacks and use a decentralized (non-premined) merged-mined token to power a sidechain supported explicitly by the Bitcoin community, to make transactions smooth again?

(PS: Reading the last posts, isn't this exactly your idea @Wind_FURY?)

My last post is actually only about continuing miner incentives when all of the coins are mined. philipma1957 believes that there might be a situation when fees alone might not be enough to incentivize miners. I merely suggested a "miner-chain" merged-mined with Bitcoin to continue paying the miners through block rewards.

Your suggestion, to push out Ordinals from the Bitcoin blockchain to the miner-chain, made it better. Everyone will get what they want.

[MeCsc]

So in the long run, would this not increase bitcoin scaling problem?

[d5000]

I personally believe the reason why they refused to use a side-chain (even though other solutions existed) is because they wanted to gain maximum hype possible for their scams.

Yep, I believe that too. However, that's true for the hype phase. In the long run, the protocol offering the best compromise between the factors cost, safety and access to the Bitcoin ecosystem will win. And that may be a sidechain.

I've just read that there's a demo sidechain called Soma specially for NFTs, a so-called "spacechain" in beta testing on signet, which would work in a decentralized fashion. (made by the guy who yesterday launched a first successful "attack" on Ordinals ... the so called "inscription numbers" now don't work anymore, but the ownership does, so [for many, unfortunately] the protocol seems not to be broken still).

However, I'd also argue that those using Bitcoin to pay and receive payments would benefit from moving parts of their activity to a sidechain if it is decentralized enough. The problem is that RSK is almost completely centralized, Stacks is already better but uses a premined token. Drivechain is probably the best long term proposal but needs a controversial code change. Thus the idea of a "decentralized Stacks fork" with a merge-mined token.

I merely suggested a "miner-chain" merged-mined with Bitcoin to continue paying the miners through block rewards.

I've partly read what you discussed about miner incentives, but I guessed partly it was also about scaling/improving the "block congestion" issue. The proposed Soma spacechain would already be able to fulfill both goals - its reward policy could be designed in a way an infinite coin issuance (like in Dogecoin or in Monero) is ensured.

[larry_vw_1955]

(made by the guy who yesterday launched a first successful "attack" on Ordinals ... the so called "inscription numbers" now don't work anymore, but the ownership does, so [for many, unfortunately] the protocol seems not to be broken still).

what are you talking about exactly? what do you mean inscription numbers don't work anymore? 

[d5000]

what are you talking about exactly? what do you mean inscription numbers don't work anymore? 

This story:

Developer Inserts 'Bug' in Bitcoin Ordinals—How Bad Is It?

Basically, there seems to be a technique to inscribe a satoshi you don't own, with some 0-value input/output sorcery. (Technically I haven't understood it fully, others may provide an ELI5).

The problem is if you want to ignore these satoshis you have to modify inscription numbers, and then lots of them will be "off".

Inscription numbers aren't that important in the Ordinals protocol, but if someone was selling things like "the 1000st monkey" or "the 100st BRC-20 token" based on that number, their business model may be broken now.

(As I wrote in the previous post, NFT ownership seems not to be broken by this attack.)

[larry_vw_1955]

This story:

Developer Inserts 'Bug' in Bitcoin Ordinals—How Bad Is It?

appreciate the link.

The problem is if you want to ignore these satoshis you have to modify inscription numbers, and then lots of them will be "off".

yeah, here is casey's exact statement:

“However, fixing the bug by making [the Ordinals protocol] ignore this inscription would change inscription numbers after the curious transaction. I'm honestly not sure what to do!” added Rodarmor soon after the issue was found.

he's not sure what to do  luckily ordinals is not part of bitcoin core. and it can be ignored to that extent...

Inscription numbers aren't that important in the Ordinals protocol, but if someone was selling things like "the 1000st monkey" or "the 100st BRC-20 token" based on that number, their business model may be broken now.

whoever had the 1000th monkey probably got it by a bit of luck since I don't think you can control exactly what number you get. but they were probably trying so yeah they wouldn't be too happy if casey in his infinite wisdom decided to renumber things...

(As I wrote in the previous post, NFT ownership seems not to be broken by this attack.)

from the way the article sounded, i would agree. but it does maybe sound a small alarm bell to people who own monkeys that they need to get their house in order. and understand their monkey better.

[DaCryptoRaccoon]

Well it was created because it could be created. Anything that can be created will be created. The creator of Ordinals realized there was a way to spam data into transactions, an unintended consequence that was left open in the Taproot upgrade. People don't like it because it spams data into transactions, therefore filling up blocks with arbitrary data in the form of NFTs rather than monetary transaction data.

It's an interesting use of bitcoin, but it in no way helps Bitcoin, while it does hurt Bitcoin's ability to perform monetary transactions on-chain, which as we all know was already at a premium. Unfortunately there is a market for lame collections of digital images to be sold for money and therefore the economics of NFTs is such that the transaction fees are worth sending them around on Bitcoin.

Imagine you have a four lane highway and then someone realizes that there is no rule against circuses marching along the highway. Suddenly you've got several lanes filled up with a circus act while the people actually trying to travel have to be stuffed into one or two lanes instead of four. And there is a small but sufficient amount of those people who are willing to pay to watch the circus in the other lanes so the circus act clogging up the road is economically viable. That's what NFTs does to Bitcoin.




An interesting idea to think about is if NFTs end up spamming Bitcoin so much that they take over the chain, will it end up being in the best interest of Bitcoin to hard fork away with an anti-Ordinals upgrade and leave the original blockchain as a dead-end NFT-focused s**tcoin. That would be a very drastic scenario but Ordinals is essentially a spam attack on Bitcoin that is unlikely to go away as it seems even though the NFT fad largely died off already there are still enough people interested in paying money for cheap collections of digital images on the blockchain that the economics of NFTs are still worth it. The general consensus of the Bitcoin is to keep the chain immutable and not hard fork, but in cases such as this where unintended consequences of upgrades end up attacking Bitcoin and making it less useful the community may at some point need to consider moving the chain on to an upgrade that isn't compatible with such an attack, unless a soft-fork to stop Ordinals is possible.


But the answer to the questions is it was created because it could be. And yes it is an interesting use of Bitcoin, it's just not a good use of Bitcoin, due to Bitcoin being the digital currency for all of humanity and transaction space being at a premium. The last thing Bitcoin needs is arbitrary non-currency data lessening its ability to move money around.

Your opinion is it is spam. Others believe it to be art.

https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/_assets/www.moma.org/wp/moma_learning/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Warhol.-Soup-Cans-469x292.jpg


is the above art?  mom.org says it is.

so you may not like it but if blockchain art is deleted I smell lawsuits.

Best you can do is set a future date to stop new additions.

Which will make the ones on the chain  now more costly.

I think we can safety say spam is exactly what happened.

Only reason you miners like it is your getting dirty rich off the fees.

Terrible for Bitcoin as a whole and has put people off using it for transactions.

Pandora's box is open..

[larry_vw_1955]

Only reason you miners like it is your getting dirty rich off the fees.

hard to argue with that.

Terrible for Bitcoin as a whole and has put people off using it for transactions.

i mean yeah that's definitely true. my first choice for sending money would not be using bitcoin these last few months, that's for sure. and i don't see that changing anytime soon. have to use other ways. probably forever. 

[Flexystar]

The Ordinal NFT is actually combined since there is a difference between NFT and Ordinals itself.

Casey Rodarmor differentiated them very easily and improved the Ordinals to whole new dimensions. For example, an NFT would be a metadata which can be updated but that needs to be updated "off chain". What does it mean? Simply put, imagine an artwork of lets say monkey icon where image is little blurry. Then if there comes an update to this image and it needs to be made into high resolution image then one has to update it off chain but there was drawback to this. The original NFT would remain unattended unless and until owner refreshes the NFT on his dashboard.

On the other hand Casey Rodarmor gave amazing update to the next protocol that they coded. In case of Ordinals, they can be updated "on chain" which means if you are accessing the meta data of ordinals then it will updated live on the blockchain. This later formed the Ordinal NFT.

According to them NFT are incomplete while Ordinal NFT are complete.

What are Ordinals?
Each Bitcoin is broken into 100,000,000 units called satoshis (or sats). The new Ordinals protocol allows people who operate Bitcoin nodes to inscribe each sat with data, creating something called an Ordinal. That data inscribed on Bitcoin can include smart contracts, which in turn enables NFTs. In rough terms, Ordinals are NFTs you can mint directly onto the Bitcoin blockchain.

But that’s not exactly right. That’s the short-hand understanding, but there are a few important differences between NFTs and Ordinals.

Bitcoin NFTs? Ordinals Inscriptions Explained (Finding, Buying, & More)

You can find detailed study on the Ordinal NFT, best article and worth 10 min reading.