(Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed

[Wind_FURY]

why? what is your reasoning behind this statement

Hear me out: Ordinals on Lightning.



No of course they're different. One is a L2 solution for moving around BTC and the other is a L1 solution for moving around satoshis of artificial importance.

An off-chain layer for NFTs, with Bitcoin as the settlement layer, will be actually be the most ideal conclusion for the "Ordinals Drama". It's going to be more efficient, cheaper for users, and developers could actually build "trading" apps using them because transaction throughput will be higher. Plus from a technological/development standpoint, building off-chain layers might be a learning experience for the developers, the actual users, and the general community.

[1714246909]

1714246909

[1714246909]

1714246909

[1714246909]

1714246909

[Pmalek]

An off-chain layer for NFTs, with Bitcoin as the settlement layer, will be actually be the most ideal conclusion for the "Ordinals Drama". It's going to be more efficient, cheaper for users, and developers could actually build "trading" apps using them because transaction throughput will be higher.

That's assuming that's what they want. 'They' being the creators of Bitcoin blockchain bloat and spam. I don't think they are interested in moving their activities off-chain. I am ready to be proven wrong, though. I think making the Bitcoin blockchain congested is one of the goals, aside from tricking a big enough crowd that the inscriptions have a value. They are trying to prove a point by saying, you didn't want a bigger block size, so enjoy our Ordinals on your low-throughput network.   

[Wind_FURY]

An off-chain layer for NFTs, with Bitcoin as the settlement layer, will be actually be the most ideal conclusion for the "Ordinals Drama". It's going to be more efficient, cheaper for users, and developers could actually build "trading" apps using them because transaction throughput will be higher.

That's assuming that's what they want. 'They' being the creators of Bitcoin blockchain bloat and spam. I don't think they are interested in moving their activities off-chain.

I'm assuming from the viewpoint that capital is limited, and Bitcoin = Capital. They either run out of capital first by doing expensive on-chain transactions, or they are going to start to do it more efficiently and cheaply off-chain.

Plus I believe we could also assume that that many of "those" users want cheaper transactions as well, and that they would accept the trade-off of having lesser security to have cheaper transactions.

I am ready to be proven wrong, though. I think making the Bitcoin blockchain congested is one of the goals, aside from tricking a big enough crowd that the inscriptions have a value. They are trying to prove a point by saying, you didn't want a bigger block size, so enjoy our Ordinals on your low-throughput network.   

There "could" be some entities that "could" use Ordinals as an attack vector to spam the blockchain, and make it congested. Good luck to those entities, and let them burn though their capital. The miners + a small group of people will make money, 90% will not. It's simply not sustainable plus it proves that the system works.

[cryptosize]

An off-chain layer for NFTs, with Bitcoin as the settlement layer, will be actually be the most ideal conclusion for the "Ordinals Drama". It's going to be more efficient, cheaper for users, and developers could actually build "trading" apps using them because transaction throughput will be higher.

That's assuming that's what they want. 'They' being the creators of Bitcoin blockchain bloat and spam. I don't think they are interested in moving their activities off-chain.

I'm assuming from the viewpoint that capital is limited, and Bitcoin = Capital. They either run out of capital first by doing expensive on-chain transactions, or they are going to start to do it more efficiently and cheaply off-chain.

Plus I believe we could also assume that that many of "those" users want cheaper transactions as well, and that they would accept the trade-off of having lesser security to have cheaper transactions.

I am ready to be proven wrong, though. I think making the Bitcoin blockchain congested is one of the goals, aside from tricking a big enough crowd that the inscriptions have a value. They are trying to prove a point by saying, you didn't want a bigger block size, so enjoy our Ordinals on your low-throughput network.   

There "could" be some entities that "could" use Ordinals as an attack vector to spam the blockchain, and make it congested. Good luck to those entities, and let them burn though their capital. The miners + a small group of people will make money, 90% will not. It's simply not sustainable plus it proves that the system works.

For some strange reason it keeps going on for months and months since last year...

Maybe because some of these guys behind Ordinals/BRC-20 are actually OG Bitcoiners who jumped to the big block camp (BCH/BSV) and keep burning incessant amounts of BTC?

Not everyone exchanged their BTC stash for BCH/BSV... some people kept both after the forks happened.

[nutildah]

An off-chain layer for NFTs, with Bitcoin as the settlement layer, will be actually be the most ideal conclusion for the "Ordinals Drama". It's going to be more efficient, cheaper for users, and developers could actually build "trading" apps using them because transaction throughput will be higher. Plus from a technological/development standpoint, building off-chain layers might be a learning experience for the developers, the actual users, and the general community.

There is something like this in the works - I think I mentioned it earlier in this thread - and it could explain the reduction in Ordinals-related activity. The inscription part will still have to take place on-chain but in theory the ordinals themselves can be moved around in some kind of off-chain, second-layer mechanism, akin to Lightning. But the main reason they are doing this isn't to help anyone out, its so they can pay less fees when making ordinals transactions. Win/win situation nevertheless.

[Wind_FURY]

Not everyone exchanged their BTC stash for BCH/BSV... some people kept both after the forks happened.

Why exchange Bitcoin to a shitcoin? Merely they're followers sold their Bitcoins for a forked-shitcoin that's forked from a forked-shitcoin. It proved how naive people can be. Plus by HODLing BSV, they are losing units in Bitcoin.

An off-chain layer for NFTs, with Bitcoin as the settlement layer, will be actually be the most ideal conclusion for the "Ordinals Drama". It's going to be more efficient, cheaper for users, and developers could actually build "trading" apps using them because transaction throughput will be higher. Plus from a technological/development standpoint, building off-chain layers might be a learning experience for the developers, the actual users, and the general community.

There is something like this in the works - I think I mentioned it earlier in this thread - and it could explain the reduction in Ordinals-related activity. The inscription part will still have to take place on-chain but in theory the ordinals themselves can be moved around in some kind of off-chain, second-layer mechanism, akin to Lightning. But the main reason they are doing this isn't to help anyone out, its so they can pay less fees when making ordinals transactions. Win/win situation nevertheless.

Or merely stop using Ordinals, which is merely a system made up in Rodarmor's head, and use a more efficient system with better architecture, no? Because if users truly wanted to store and secure their dick pics in the blockchain, it's better to use Bitcoin Stamps.

[tread93]

why? what is your reasoning behind this statement

Hear me out: Ordinals on Lightning.



No of course they're different. One is a L2 solution for moving around BTC and the other is a L1 solution for moving around satoshis of artificial importance.

Hey honestly it seems like a great way to solve the problem when you read it but its not that simple. There will be some sort of bug fix on this, eventually, in probably a couple of years time or something as the demand for ordinals increases etc. I am honeslty so pissed that I didn't get set up sooner and get in on that ordinals rune airdrop. Those flipping ordinals are starting at a floor price of like 4k, its just stupid. I feel stupid for having talked about doing it for so long and still yet again not following my better judgment and following through with it. Ugh. Need to get in on it. If anyone wants to drop me some runes send it to your boy tread93 lmao here is my ordinals addy     that I literally just made because I put it off for so long: bc1pz89d7xccj2klp4fw8777g9yhfg56cv8sgqn5jl0gcwhuzfepgjds09y3cs   

[pooya87]

If the Ordinals scammers wanted to use layer two or rather a side-chain instead of inserting their arbitrary data into the Bitcoin main chain, they would have never used Bitcoin in first place because that would defeat their purpose which is to first spam Bitcoin chain and second to use Bitcoin's name to hype up their scam and get more victims.
They would have instead used an actual token creation platform such as ethereum to actually create actual tokens!

[BlackHatCoiner]

[...]

The best selling point of Ordinals is that they are embedded in the most secure and decentralized blockchain, Bitcoin's. They could be implemented much cheaper in a sidechain, or an altcoin, but this would result in just another useless token concept which would be forgotten after a couple of months. Think of an altcoin that can survive in the long term, allows you to embed trash and is equally censorship resistant such that its community would be highly discouraged from excluding that trash specifically. I don't think there is.

[Wind_FURY]

If the Ordinals scammers wanted to use layer two or rather a side-chain instead of inserting their arbitrary data into the Bitcoin main chain, they would have never used Bitcoin in first place because that would defeat their purpose which is to first spam Bitcoin chain and second to use Bitcoin's name to hype up their scam and get more victims.

They would have instead used an actual token creation platform such as ethereum to actually create actual tokens!

Although it's true that they're using Bitcoin "for NFTs" because it's "something new", what it also showed is that there's a huge amount of dormant capital that was waiting for something like Ordinals to happen. The Ordinals token ORDI had so much trading volume that made it surge more than ten times from October, 2023 to January, 2024. If you ask me, that's capital from holders who were waiting for something to do with their Bitcoins. You could call it spam and/or scam, but that truly doesn't matter because they paid for the fees and they're following the consensus rules.

Ordinals will not go away, and I believe that it's starting to encourage developers to build applications for "Bitcoin DeFi". That would probably be the biggest narrative that's coming in the current bull cycle.

[DooMAD]

and I believe that it's starting to encourage developers to build applications for "Bitcoin DeFi". That would probably be the biggest narrative that's coming in the current bull cycle.

Aging myself here, but does anyone else remember a time when DeFi was meant to accomplish disrupting legitimate industries such as notary services, remittances, etc?  When did DeFi get butchered into meaning "Let's get fuckwits to trade worthless trash with each other"?  I'd be supportive of such a narrative if we could get back to more noble pursuits.  But it mostly just reeks of opportunism and exploitation.  Is anyone building anything someone rational would care about?

[pooya87]

it also showed is that there's a huge amount of dormant capital that was waiting for something like Ordinals to happen.

Unless we can find some solid evidence of the origin of the funds that went into these junks we can't call it "dormant capital". I'd say there are two main sources for the funds that pumped Ordinal's fake tokens: (1) dedicated money to attack Bitcoin (2) the same old altcoin/token traders who take their capital from shitcoin to shitcoin every single day to make profit. Like this: https://www.coingecko.com/en/all-cryptocurrencies?sort_by=change24h

[Wind_FURY]

and I believe that it's starting to encourage developers to build applications for "Bitcoin DeFi". That would probably be the biggest narrative that's coming in the current bull cycle.

Aging myself here, but does anyone else remember a time when DeFi was meant to accomplish disrupting legitimate industries such as notary services, remittances, etc?  When did DeFi get butchered into meaning "Let's get fuckwits to trade worthless trash with each other"?  I'd be supportive of such a narrative if we could get back to more noble pursuits.  But it mostly just reeks of opportunism and exploitation.  Is anyone building anything someone rational would care about?

It will be the same reason why humans gamble. Whether "Bitcoin DeFi" will have real utility or not, it will be the next Bitcoin narrative. "Bitcoin DeFi" developers will make giant "casinos" on top of Bitcoin to unlock dormant capital. Jihan Wu might be a big player in this.

it also showed is that there's a huge amount of dormant capital that was waiting for something like Ordinals to happen.

Unless we can find some solid evidence of the origin of the funds that went into these junks we can't call it "dormant capital". I'd say there are two main sources for the funds that pumped Ordinal's fake tokens: (1) dedicated money to attack Bitcoin (2) the same old altcoin/token traders who take their capital from shitcoin to shitcoin every single day to make profit. Like this: https://www.coingecko.com/en/all-cryptocurrencies?sort_by=change24h

Although debatable if the volume on recent Ordinals activity were truly from "dormant capital, but ser I'm also literally talking about the Bitcoins HODLed in those wallets that have never moved for years. I believe at some point, they will be used. But when? When Bitcoin is at $2 trillion total market value, $5 trillion? Human society and prospecting have always gone side by side in modern human history.

[larry_vw_1955]

Aging myself here, but does anyone else remember a time when DeFi was meant to accomplish disrupting legitimate industries such as notary services, remittances, etc? 

i can't quite recall back that far but i do remember how they used to proclaim how "defi" was going to save the "unbanked". imagine that. someone that doesn't even have a bank account, did that ever make sense how they would suddenly be able to transact on an expensive blockchain called ethereum just so they could do what? no one even takes ethereum as payment in the real world so there's that...but someone that doesn't even have a bank account probably doesn't even have a phone because there's tons of bank accounts you can sign up with BY PHONE...and actually use to buy things from places. unlike with ethereum.

[pooya87]

Aging myself here, but does anyone else remember a time when DeFi was meant to accomplish disrupting legitimate industries such as notary services, remittances, etc? 

i can't quite recall back that far but i do remember how they used to proclaim how "defi" was going to save the "unbanked". imagine that. someone that doesn't even have a bank account, did that ever make sense how they would suddenly be able to transact on an expensive blockchain called ethereum just so they could do what? no one even takes ethereum as payment in the real world so there's that...but someone that doesn't even have a bank account probably doesn't even have a phone because there's tons of bank accounts you can sign up with BY PHONE...and actually use to buy things from places. unlike with ethereum.

It all comes down to how you define Decentralized Finance. You could put Bitcoin and what it offers under the category of "Decentralized Finance" and it does offer a solution for the "unbanked". The problem is when these days people talk about "Decentralized Finance" they are referring to the DeFi token creation hype where they create an utterly useless token on a token creation platform like ethereum and pump and dump it. That's not Decentralized Finance at all! That's more like selling dog poop in a pretty bag!

[Wind_FURY]

Aging myself here, but does anyone else remember a time when DeFi was meant to accomplish disrupting legitimate industries such as notary services, remittances, etc? 

i can't quite recall back that far but i do remember how they used to proclaim how "defi" was going to save the "unbanked". imagine that. someone that doesn't even have a bank account, did that ever make sense how they would suddenly be able to transact on an expensive blockchain called ethereum just so they could do what? no one even takes ethereum as payment in the real world so there's that...but someone that doesn't even have a bank account probably doesn't even have a phone because there's tons of bank accounts you can sign up with BY PHONE...and actually use to buy things from places. unlike with ethereum.

It all comes down to how you define Decentralized Finance. You could put Bitcoin and what it offers under the category of "Decentralized Finance" and it does offer a solution for the "unbanked". The problem is when these days people talk about "Decentralized Finance" they are referring to the DeFi token creation hype where they create an utterly useless token on a token creation platform like ethereum and pump and dump it. That's not Decentralized Finance at all! That's more like selling dog poop in a pretty bag!

But can dog poop in a pretty bag make one Bitcoin grow to two Bitcoin? Sometimes when an opportunity comes to earn using dormant capital merely stored in a wallet, we should probably take some risk, no? Bitcoin "DeFi" from Asia might be the largest narrative for Bitcoin this cycle. If the price surges to $100,000, what's the next prediction? $500,000? I will merely wash my hands after picking up then selling the dog poop.

[titular]

In other words if Bitcoin ceased to exist right now, LN would cease to exist too but Ordinals may not!

This is incorrect. LN operates independently of Bitcoin and is not contingent upon its existence. LN possesses the capability to facilitate transactions across various blockchain platforms, not limited solely to Bitcoin. LN is not reliant on Bitcoin; were Bitcoin to cease to exist, the Lightning Network would continue to function autonomously.

[BlackHatCoiner]

[...]

Theoretically, lightning can work without Bitcoin, but practically, it has little to no purpose. I presume that's what pooya meant. You'd use lightning mostly to avoid paying an outrageous amount of money for a low-value Bitcoin transaction, but beyond that it isn't useful. Litecoin's mempool is mostly empty, micro-transactions can take place there cheaply and get confirmed soon enough. Needless to mention that most lightning software is written to work on Bitcoin and isn't tested anywhere else.

[cryptosize]

Interesting analysis:

https://www.theheldreport.com/p/bitcoin-runes-explainer

Casey launches his Runes token standard on the halving in April – at blockheight 840,000. It could be a giant boost in fees to Bitcoin miners at the very moment they need it the most!

[MusaMohamed]

It all comes down to how you define Decentralized Finance. You could put Bitcoin and what it offers under the category of "Decentralized Finance" and it does offer a solution for the "unbanked".

The unbanked are people who have issues to access bank system and can not have their bank account. They can have their own banks with Bitcoin with very simple condition nowadays.

Have Internet connection, and a device to download a Bitcoin wallet, create to use.

It's worthwhile to note to be their own banks with Bitcoin, they must.

- Use a non custodial wallet, open source.
- Verify it, to avoid phishing, fake wallets.
- Backup their wallets.
- Test backups for recovery.
- Fund that wallet with Bitcoin and use it to store their bitcoins, to broadcast bitcoin transaction for their trades.

The problem is when these days people talk about "Decentralized Finance" they are referring to the DeFi token creation hype where they create an utterly useless token on a token creation platform like ethereum and pump and dump it. That's not Decentralized Finance at all! That's more like selling dog poop in a pretty bag!

A project that is centralized in Vitalik hands, was premined and was rolled back like Ethereum blockchain, is not a decentralized project and blockchain.

If Ethereum can not be decentralized, other altcoin projects and blockchain are only more centralized than Ethereum.