Ordinals suddenly starts making the rounds.

[JiiBs]

Ordinals

So lately I seem to have seen this word a lot more regularly than my few months in haven’t been around. This is not like from weeks ago but, just days after the halving and few days that preceded the halving. While it’s been trashed talked by some users to be some,
- Some rubbish that didn’t have a place with Bitcoin
- Referred as though, it’s got little or no value about it
- Something that should be dissolved or set loose from Bitcoin.

While, I don’t seem to really understand it as a whole but, how then did this very not well appreciated part of Bitcoin came to be this way? I don’t really get the concept but, it doesn’t seem very appreciated.

My searches on what Ordinals really is talks about, Ordinals being some Bitcoin NFT, where Satoshi Nakamoto assigned some signatures to the sats that could serve as an NFT (Non Fungible Tokens).
Should a currency of this nature really have that? Just a good for thought. I mean, Bitcoin is just as unique, precious and more adorned the way it is such that, it’s shadow will continue to be cast on whatever it’s tied or linked with.
Though, that’s not the point but,
While it talked about having certain signatures attached to the sats, isn’t this applicable to every other sats out there, to serve as a unique unit of there own with them signatures?

I don’t know where am getting it wrong but, the halving seemed to have brought this to light and so, I would want a little clarification on the topic. Thanks!

[1714856021]

1714856021

[1714856021]

1714856021

[1714856021]

1714856021

[examplens]

I don’t know where am getting it wrong but, the halving seemed to have brought this to light and so, I would want a little clarification on the topic. Thanks!

For the most part, you understood this well, and this has already been discussed so many times. All Bitcoin enthusiasts and users will agree with you, while speculators will be on the opposite side because they see NFT on the BTC network as an opportunity to make money.
There is not much to halving except that many people thought that their token could have a higher value if it was written in a specific ^halving block.

[ABCbits]

My searches on what Ordinals really is talks about, Ordinals being some Bitcoin NFT, where Satoshi Nakamoto assigned some signatures to the sats that could serve as an NFT (Non Fungible Tokens).

Satoshi never did that, it's mentioned by Casey Rodarmor as part of Ordinal theory.

Should a currency of this nature really have that? Just a good for thought. I mean, Bitcoin is just as unique, precious and more adorned the way it is such that, it’s shadow will continue to be cast on whatever it’s tied or linked with.

Probably no, currency usually expected to be fungible.

Though, that’s not the point but,
While it talked about having certain signatures attached to the sats, isn’t this applicable to every other sats out there, to serve as a unique unit of there own with them signatures?

At least for ordinal numbering purpose, the answer in yes.

[pooya87]

My searches on what Ordinals really is talks about, Ordinals being some Bitcoin NFT,

That is why Ordinals can be categorized as a scam because it is not an NFT. To be a "token", first Bitcoin has to be a token creation platform (which it isn't) and it has to contain actual script/smart contract that is executed inside and enforced by the Bitcoin protocol (which it isn't).

Ordinals is just arbitrary data that is being injected into the bitcoin blockchain by exploiting a flaw in the SegWit rules consensus rules.

where Satoshi Nakamoto assigned some signatures to the sats that could serve as an NFT (Non Fungible Tokens).

Satoshi didn't do that. Someone else created this whole fakery!

Should a currency of this nature really have that?

Satoshi Nakamoto has already answered that (just replace DNS with the Ordinals crap and it's pretty much the same thing):

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

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

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

While it talked about having certain signatures attached to the sats, isn’t this applicable to every other sats out there, to serve as a unique unit of there own with them signatures?

It kinda is! Considering how Ordinals work (a completely separate and centralized place where people put a value on random UTXOs) you can decide to place a value on any UTXO the same way! and call it a "unique unit".

[NotATether]

While, I don’t seem to really understand it as a whole but, how then did this very not well appreciated part of Bitcoin came to be this way? I don’t really get the concept but, it doesn’t seem very appreciated.

By using up most of the block space storing ordinals, it makes transaction fees higher, which makes it more expensive for us to send money on-chain.

[JiiBs]

My searches on what Ordinals really is talks about, Ordinals being some Bitcoin NFT, where Satoshi Nakamoto assigned some signatures to the sats that could serve as an NFT (Non Fungible Tokens).

Satoshi never did that, it's mentioned by Casey Rodarmor as part of Ordinal theory.

where Satoshi Nakamoto assigned some signatures to the sats that could serve as an NFT (Non Fungible Tokens).

Satoshi didn't do that. Someone else created this whole fakery!

Oh wow, impression noted and corrected.

Though, that’s not the point but,
While it talked about having certain signatures attached to the sats, isn’t this applicable to every other sats out there, to serve as a unique unit of there own with them signatures?

At least for ordinal numbering purpose, the answer in yes.

There is not much to halving except that many people thought that their token could have a higher value if it was written in a specific ^halving block.

I’m essence, it’s just the same as with every sat which is though significant as per numbering, I really find little to no significance as per its placement in the blocks anyway. It’s not the first block ever, is it and as such, it doesn’t really matter.

For the most, it doesn’t really matter what block it is, that’s as insignificant as every other block.

By using up most of the block space storing ordinals, it makes transaction fees higher, which makes it more expensive for us to send money on-chain.

For what is worth, this is something I find the most recent halving and this whole Ordinal shit to have been tailored with. Like, how could such a thing that isn’t really helping as per the ease of Bitcoin transaction be of any value to the whole technology in itself, it just doesn’t work by letting it stay!

[bitmover]

While, I don’t seem to really understand it as a whole but, how then did this very not well appreciated part of Bitcoin came to be this way? I don’t really get the concept but, it doesn’t seem very appreciated.

My searches on what Ordinals really is talks about, Ordinals being some Bitcoin NFT, where Satoshi Nakamoto assigned some signatures to the sats that could serve as an NFT (Non Fungible Tokens).
Should a currency of this nature really have that? Just a good for thought. I mean, Bitcoin is just as unique, precious and more adorned the way it is such that, it’s shadow will continue to be cast on whatever it’s tied or linked with.
Though, that’s not the point but,
While it talked about having certain signatures attached to the sats, isn’t this applicable to every other sats out there, to serve as a unique unit of there own with them signatures?

Here is the official ordinals documentation, wheree they explain how to determine if a satoshi is common /rare/ uncommon etc

https://docs.ordinals.com/overview.html

Ordinals are a numbering scheme for satoshis that allows tracking and transferring individual sats. These numbers are called ordinal numbers. Satoshis are numbered in the order in which they're mined, and transferred from transaction inputs to transaction outputs first-in-first-out. Both the numbering scheme and the transfer scheme rely on order, the numbering scheme on the order in which satoshis are mined, and the transfer scheme on the order of transaction inputs and outputs. Thus the name, ordinals.

Total Supply

    common: 2.1 quadrillion
    uncommon: 6,929,999
    rare: 3437
    epic: 32
    legendary: 5
    mythic: 1