NFT Idea: Prove Funds to Mint

[nftman]

so here's an idea:
I have an idea for an NFT collection for true Bitcoin believers.
To get one of these NFTs, you need to prove that you have been keeping 1000 BTC in your wallet for the last 6 months.
This will be verified by you signing a message with your private key and sending it to a smart contract.

Why would someone buy this?
People who see your NFT will know that you're hodling a lot of Bitcoins.
You get access to a community of other whales.

So what does everyone think? Is it a dumb idea or should we make it happen?

[1714229370]

1714229370

[1714229370]

1714229370

[1714229370]

1714229370

[1714229370]

1714229370

[pooya87]

Is it a dumb idea

Yes, it is.

[vapourminer]

Is it a dumb idea

Yes, it is.

rats. sent a merit by accident to nftman instead of pooya. apologies.

so just to reiterate.. yes, its a bad idea

[Pmalek]

Why would someone buy this?
People who see your NFT will know that you're hodling a lot of Bitcoins.

Why would I want to put a digital target on my back saying I own or have owned at least 1000 bitcoin recently? Would you want to walk down a street holding a sign saying you are rich or have a lot of gold in your house?

Many bitcoiners want to remain anonymous and not draw unnecessary attention to themselves. They also wouldn't care about hyped digital waste known as NFTs that could maybe have one or two useful applications with the rest being garbage. I am sorry, but I don't think many would be interested in this.  

[nftman]

Why would someone buy this?
People who see your NFT will know that you're hodling a lot of Bitcoins.

Why would I want to put a digital target on my back saying I own or have owned at least 1000 bitcoin recently? Would you want to walk down a street holding a sign saying you are rich or have a lot of gold in your house?

Many bitcoiners want to remain anonymous and not draw unnecessary attention to themselves. They also wouldn't care about hyped digital waste known as NFTs that could maybe have one or two useful application with the rest being garbage. I am sorry, but I don't think many would be interested in this. 

Why do people buy designer clothes? Why do they wear million-dollar watches?
That also puts a literal target on your back, you just have to make sure your security is on point.

Yes many bitcoiners love being anonymous. But also we are people, we like to announce to the world what we are proud of. We like to announce to the world that we believe in Bitcoin, and also the fact that we have made it big at the same time.

[ABCbits]

so here's an idea:
I have an idea for an NFT collection for true Bitcoin believers.
To get one of these NFTs, you need to prove that you have been keeping 1000 BTC in your wallet for the last 6 months.
This will be verified by you signing a message with your private key and sending it to a smart contract.

First of all, BItcoin doesn't have smart contract. So you probably have to do it on Bitcoin side-chain (such as Rootstock or Liquid) or altcoin with smart contract capability.

So what does everyone think? Is it a dumb idea or should we make it happen?

It's dumb, but nobody can stop you from making it happen.

--snip--

Why do people buy designer clothes? Why do they wear million-dollar watches?
That also puts a literal target on your back, you just have to make sure your security is on point.

At least those items either have very good branding/popularity, long history or impressive engineering.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Why do people buy designer clothes? Why do they wear million-dollar watches?

Apart from them being completely tangible and giving some prestige to those wearing them, it doesn't mean it isn't dumb. You really must have nothing else to do with your money to just spend millions on watches and designer clothes, and I still can't comprehend that authority they supposedly give to you. But to answer your other question, have you seen lots walking in the street holding a sign that says their total in the bank?

[Kryptowerk]

so here's an idea:
I have an idea for an NFT collection for true Bitcoin believers.
To get one of these NFTs, you need to prove that you have been keeping 1000 BTC in your wallet for the last 6 months.
This will be verified by you signing a message with your private key and sending it to a smart contract.

Why would someone buy this?
People who see your NFT will know that you're hodling a lot of Bitcoins.
You get access to a community of other whales.

So what does everyone think? Is it a dumb idea or should we make it happen?

If for some insane reason you want to show off your (currently) $30000000 USD, just post your signed message of your wallet address holding said 1k BTC. No need to wrap that into an NFT or some other bullshit-token.

Is it a dumb idea

Yes, it is.

+1

Prove of funds can indeed make some sort of sense for an institution or maybe an individual in certain business related cases to prove liquidity. But again, this step to the Ethereum network is just 100% redundant.

[Wind_FURY]

Why would someone buy this?
People who see your NFT will know that you're hodling a lot of Bitcoins.

Why would I want to put a digital target on my back saying I own or have owned at least 1000 bitcoin recently? Would you want to walk down a street holding a sign saying you are rich or have a lot of gold in your house?

Many bitcoiners want to remain anonymous and not draw unnecessary attention to themselves. They also wouldn't care about hyped digital waste known as NFTs that could maybe have one or two useful application with the rest being garbage. I am sorry, but I don't think many would be interested in this.  

Why do people buy designer clothes? Why do they wear million-dollar watches?
That also puts a literal target on your back, you just have to make sure your security is on point.

Yes many bitcoiners love being anonymous. But also we are people, we like to announce to the world what we are proud of. We like to announce to the world that we believe in Bitcoin, and also the fact that we have made it big at the same time.

It's a different culture with Bitcoiners compared to your community of people who wear designer clothes. Bitcoiners are more interested in tools that make people more ungovernable, although I believe none would admit it to avoid Big Brother's eyes probing over them. Haha.

Plus your idea is probably good for younger Bitcoin HODLers who want to flex their wealth, but such a project could also be a government honeypot. It's not good for OPSEC.

[Pmalek]

Why do people buy designer clothes? Why do they wear million-dollar watches?

I can understand designer clothes to some degree as long as it looks good. I don't understand million-dollar watches made from diamonds, rare stones, and similar stuff rappers and the likes wear. It's idiotic to me. Seeing 15 custom-made sports cars in a driveway is equally foolish. That's my opinion at least.   

Yes many bitcoiners love being anonymous. But also we are people, we like to announce to the world what we are proud of. We like to announce to the world that we believe in Bitcoin, and also the fact that we have made it big at the same time.

So, you want to display your faith in Bitcoin by minting an NFT on Ethereum or some other blockchain? Nice. You are not going to get any serious people to support such an idea. Perhaps the younger generation whose symbol of achievement is a custom-made diamond watch worth a few millions.

[pooya87]

First of all, BItcoin doesn't have smart contract.

Technically every script we make in Bitcoin is a smart contract. A more accurate statement is that Bitcoin doesn't have smart contracts that let you create tokens including NFTs.

[satscraper]

A more accurate statement is that Bitcoin doesn't have smart contracts that let you create tokens including NFTs.

And what about Ordinals, BRC-20 and the latest BRC-69? It appears that these  protocols enable the creation of both fungible tokens, such as BRC-20,  and non-fungible tokens, such as Ordinals and BRC-69. These tokens exhibit similar   functionality to those ones that smart contracts  runing  on  Ethereum/EVM networks.

Or, did you mean the original Bitcoin protocol?

[ABCbits]

A more accurate statement is that Bitcoin doesn't have smart contracts that let you create tokens including NFTs.

And what about Ordinals, BRC-20 and the latest BRC-69? It appears that these  protocols enable the creation of both fungible tokens, such as BRC-20,  and non-fungible tokens, such as Ordinals and BRC-69. These tokens exhibit similar   functionality to those ones that smart contracts  runing  on  Ethereum/EVM networks.

Or, did you mean the original Bitcoin protocol?

Those aren't part of Bitcoin protocol. Bug on software to manage those NFT (Ordinals, BRC-20, etc.) could lead to losses easier (e.g. entering invalid JSON). Bitcoin node and miner still treat those as valid transaction.

[ertil]

Bitcoin doesn't have smart contracts that let you create tokens including NFTs.

Each UTXO is a separate token, that can be easily traced in the chain, passed in a transaction, created out of thin air, or destroyed if needed. There are no restrictions in consensus rules that could limit the number of UTXOs, other than physical resources of nodes to process them.

Even more: there are altcoins that copy-pasted a lot of Bitcoin rules. There are chains with opcodes like OP_CHECKDATASIG, that could validate any ECDSA signature. So, not only you can create a token just by making some UTXO, you can also connect it with some altcoin, and then make some outputs that will move on both chains, using identical signature.

And what about Ordinals, BRC-20 and the latest BRC-69?

They are not enforced by any consensus rules. If there would exist some altcoin, with some miners, that would check those rules, then yes, it could at least be enforced on such altcoin. But now, it is all based on wishful thinking that programmers can create some new rules, like in a soft-fork, and enforce all of them on Bitcoin, without any support from miners and node operators. I guess some of those people will suffer, if there would be some incentive to attack them, and for example include a transaction that would be valid on Bitcoin, but invalid on those chains.

[pooya87]

Each UTXO is a separate token,

In the cryptocurrency world a token is defined as something that created on a token creation platform as a separate asset and can have its own independent supply.
In bitcoin the UTXOs represent units of bitcoin itself, they are not called or considered "tokens".

created out of thin air,

You can't create a UTXO "out of thin air". It is always an output of a transaction (whether the block reward resulting from doing work or the result of "consuming" other UTXOs).

Even more: there are altcoins that copy-pasted a lot of Bitcoin rules. There are chains with opcodes like OP_CHECKDATASIG, that could validate any ECDSA signature. So, not only you can create a token just by making some UTXO, you can also connect it with some altcoin, and then make some outputs that will move on both chains, using identical signature.

That's more of an attack surface you are describing involving copycat-coins which is prevented by adding "replay protection".

They are not enforced by any consensus rules.

They are actually enforced by a centralized set of rules created and decided by the creators of these silly things.

If there would exist some altcoin, with some miners, that would check those rules, then yes, it could at least be enforced on such altcoin.

There already exists token platform creation altcoins that people should use to create such things.

[ertil]

In bitcoin the UTXOs represent units of bitcoin itself, they are not called or considered "tokens".

If you use zero satoshis, then you can easily turn them into tokens, because then they can be combined in any way you want, and there is no limit to the number of UTXOs that you can create. Imagine some attack vector, where some altcoin does not have its own chain, but uses Bitcoin as a storage. You can put all coins into the UTXO database, or even flood it with non-monetary use cases, like domain names, and for example trace ownership by tracing a particular UTXO. Also, you don't need any satoshis, the only thing that is needed, is someone willing to put such transactions into the chain, because for any transaction, you can always attach some zero satoshi outputs, and it will still be valid. That means, even if all coins will be mined, and the basic block reward will be zero, then still, there will always be some incentive, because some people may still want to notarize things on Bitcoin.

It is always an output of a transaction

You can always attach some zero satoshi outputs to any transaction, and it will still be valid. Basically, testnet3 is just a decentralized token creation platform by definition, because all coins are defined as "worthless", so you cannot trade them. That means, the only thing you can do, is just collecting some satoshis to pay for notarization, and then publish some information on-chain. Because coins are worthless, and blocks are far from being full, you can always pay the minimum price of one testnet satoshi per virtual byte. And then, your balance just describes, how many bytes you can notarize on-chain, because it is the only thing you can do, according to the rules.

So, I still wonder, why people use Bitcoin as their notarization platform, when they could use testnet3, that is cheaper, allows non-standard transactions, allows zero satoshi outputs (which means unlimited token creation), and can be mined locally (by going offline for 20 minutes, the difficulty drops into the minimum, and then you can mine any test blocks on your CPU to see, if something is possible or not).

That's more of an attack surface you are describing involving copycat-coins which is prevented by adding "replay protection".

The biggest mistake of those copycat-coins is "replay protection". If they wanted to include transactions faster, then they could provide just that, without splitting the coins. In this way, it would be possible to go back to Bitcoin, in case of altcoin failure, and then users could have all altcoin features, while still having 1:1 peg with Bitcoin. Also, all altcoin transactions would eventually be confirmed by Bitcoin, just it would take more time, but still, it would be possible.

Also, that case clearly shows us, that it is possible to make some altcoin, attach it to Bitcoin, and then make UTXOs that will move on both chains simultaneously. Then, it can be used to deploy any sidechains, without activating BIPs like 300 or 301. Then, peg-in would be just a proof of ownership for a particular UTXO, pushed on the sidechain, and peg-out could be realized just by moving the coins on Bitcoin, that would also trigger the same thing on the sidechain.

They are actually enforced by a centralized set of rules created and decided by the creators of these silly things.

Then, why they push anything on-chain? There is no reason to do so. All that is needed, is just signing a message, and putting that signature on such centralized website, then it could be easily assigned to the first person who did that. And then, if all rules are not enforced by the Bitcoin network at all, they could be fully executed on that centralized website, without any need to touch any on-chain coins, or push any large OP_NOPs on-chain.

There already exists token platform creation altcoins that people should use to create such things.

True. Also, there are cheaper networks, like testnet3, where "pushing data on-chain" is the only valid use case, because all coins should be treated as worthless by definition. The only reason why testnet needs any coins, is just as a flood protection, in practice people could cover all test cases with zero coins.

[nftman]

Why would someone buy this?
People who see your NFT will know that you're hodling a lot of Bitcoins.

Why would I want to put a digital target on my back saying I own or have owned at least 1000 bitcoin recently? Would you want to walk down a street holding a sign saying you are rich or have a lot of gold in your house?

Many bitcoiners want to remain anonymous and not draw unnecessary attention to themselves. They also wouldn't care about hyped digital waste known as NFTs that could maybe have one or two useful application with the rest being garbage. I am sorry, but I don't think many would be interested in this.  

Why do people buy designer clothes? Why do they wear million-dollar watches?
That also puts a literal target on your back, you just have to make sure your security is on point.

Yes many bitcoiners love being anonymous. But also we are people, we like to announce to the world what we are proud of. We like to announce to the world that we believe in Bitcoin, and also the fact that we have made it big at the same time.

It's a different culture with Bitcoiners compared to your community of people who wear designer clothes. Bitcoiners are more interested in tools that make people more ungovernable, although I believe none would admit it to avoid Big Brother's eyes probing over them. Haha.

Plus your idea is probably good for younger Bitcoin HODLers who want to flex their wealth, but such a project could also be a government honeypot. It's not good for OPSEC.

its a different culture, yes. but we're still human.

There used to be a user here called "Loaded". His whole thing was going around, flexing that he had 80k BTC.
There have also been a couple users flexing that they had 100+ btc throughout the years.

Also, may I remind you. Cryptopunks and BAYC holders are signifying the same thing (Rich Believers in Crypto).

Also, I don't see how this could be a honeypot. Criminals always try to stay under the radar (at least the smart ones).
This would only be useful to people with legitimate funds.

[SamReomo]

Why would someone buy this?
People who see your NFT will know that you're hodling a lot of Bitcoins.

Why would I want to put a digital target on my back saying I own or have owned at least 1000 bitcoin recently? Would you want to walk down a street holding a sign saying you are rich or have a lot of gold in your house?

Many bitcoiners want to remain anonymous and not draw unnecessary attention to themselves. They also wouldn't care about hyped digital waste known as NFTs that could maybe have one or two useful application with the rest being garbage. I am sorry, but I don't think many would be interested in this.  

Why do people buy designer clothes? Why do they wear million-dollar watches?
That also puts a literal target on your back, you just have to make sure your security is on point.

Yes many bitcoiners love being anonymous. But also we are people, we like to announce to the world what we are proud of. We like to announce to the world that we believe in Bitcoin, and also the fact that we have made it big at the same time.

It's a different culture with Bitcoiners compared to your community of people who wear designer clothes. Bitcoiners are more interested in tools that make people more ungovernable, although I believe none would admit it to avoid Big Brother's eyes probing over them. Haha.

Plus your idea is probably good for younger Bitcoin HODLers who want to flex their wealth, but such a project could also be a government honeypot. It's not good for OPSEC.

its a different culture, yes. but we're still human.

There used to be a user here called "Loaded". His whole thing was going around, flexing that he had 80k BTC.
There have also been a couple users flexing that they had 100+ btc throughout the years.

Also, may I remind you. Cryptopunks and BAYC holders are signifying the same thing (Rich Believers in Crypto).

Also, I don't see how this could be a honeypot. Criminals always try to stay under the radar (at least the smart ones).
This would only be useful to people with legitimate funds.

You're trying to be over smart with your words by dude you should keep in mind that everyone else also has their own minds and they wont follow someone's words blindly. I don't think that anyone on this forum is immature to share his/her Bitcoin holdings with someone whom they can't trust, and in fact we can't trust anyone else then our own selves because if we trust others with our privacy and holdings then we will definitely lose the trust when they break it into pieces.

Another thing I would like you to note that no one is interested in NFT's here because we are not naive enough to fall into trap of those digital art images which aren't unique at all. The NFT buzz was created to loot the money out of mediocre users of the crypto-world, and unfortunately I discourage you by saying that you wont mind those mediocre users on this forum.  You would better find those users somewhere else where people had Fodder in their heads instead of brains.

No one sane enough would expose his/her Bitcoin holding to public because of privacy and because of their own safety and the safety of their loved ones. In fact why would anyone claim in public that he/she is holding 1000+ Bitcoin in his/her wallet or wallets? I don't think you will get your goals accomplished here, and I must say that your idea is the dumbest one that I have came across in my whole life.

[satscraper]

In bitcoin the UTXOs represent units of bitcoin itself, they are not called or considered "tokens".

If you use zero satoshis, then you can easily turn them into tokens, because then they can be combined in any way you want, and there is no limit to the number of UTXOs that you can create. Imagine some attack vector, where some altcoin does not have its own chain, but uses Bitcoin as a storage. You can put all coins into the UTXO database, or even flood it with non-monetary use cases, like domain names, and for example trace ownership by tracing a particular UTXO. Also, you don't need any satoshis, the only thing that is needed, is someone willing to put such transactions into the chain, because for any transaction, you can always attach some zero satoshi outputs, and it will still be valid. That means, even if all coins will be mined, and the basic block reward will be zero, then still, there will always be some incentive, because some people may still want to notarize things on Bitcoin.

But such transactions with  zero satoshis OTXOs will be rejected by network,  as, to my best knowledge,  to prevent the blockchain from  bloating with unnecessary data and from spam attacks Bitcoin network enforces all   UTXOs   included into transaction to have at least minimum value, something around 550 sats, if my memory serves me right.

So,  zero satoshis OTXOs are not real in practice and what is not practically real is  mumbo jumbo in its essence, sorry.

[ABCbits]

--snip--

But such transactions with  zero satoshis OTXOs will be rejected by network,  as, to my best knowledge,  to prevent the blockchain from  bloating with unnecessary data and from spam attacks Bitcoin network enforces all   UTXOs   included into transaction to have at least minimum value, something around 550 sats, if my memory serves me right.

So,  zero satoshis OTXOs are not real in practice and what is not practically real is  mumbo jumbo in its essence, sorry.

To be precise, it's consider as non-standard transaction which means most node wouldn't rely such transaction. Although miner could include such transaction if they wish to do so.