Rare Sats and Rare Sats trading on Magisat

[Ambatman]

If you're a Bitcoin fan and you believe in it long term, you appreciate what these Two Legends gave us, and you want to own a piece of history by owning a piece of Satoshi or Hal's sats, would you not?

If I get it then yaay, still going to use it
I'm not going to actively seek it, because it still perform same function as other Sats.
Well anybody can do themselves. What's valuable to you may not be valuable to me
I still believe that all Sats are equal.
Quick one, Can one make a transaction and specify a Sats they don't plan on spending?
Like sending every other Sats and leaving a specified special one?

[DenBlad]

If you're a Bitcoin fan and you believe in it long term, you appreciate what these Two Legends gave us, and you want to own a piece of history by owning a piece of Satoshi or Hal's sats, would you not?

If I get it then yaay, still going to use it
I'm not going to actively seek it, because it still perform same function as other Sats.
Well anybody can do themselves. What's valuable to you may not be valuable to me
I still believe that all Sats are equal.
Quick one, Can one make a transaction and specify a Sats they don't plan on spending?
Like sending every other Sats and leaving a specified special one?

You can always search your wallet addresses on websites like magisat.io where they make it easy to show you a list of sats that are "rare"
Yes, you can isolate sats so you don't spend them accidentally. They show up as "Safe to spend sats" on the website. Magisat has an isolation tool that separates your regular sats from the rare ones. Xverse is the most common wallet that is able to help identify sats in the wallet.  Xverse warns you when spending those rare sats.

[Ambatman]

 Xverse warns you when spending those rare sats.

How do they define a rare Sats?
What about I don't want to send a Sat because its date just commemorate my wedding day or something quite personal.
Well not quite interested in it been rare, just curious if the Bitcoin protocol allows such transactions.
So a third party is needed to accomplish this?

[DenBlad]

 Xverse warns you when spending those rare sats.

How do they define a rare Sats?
What about I don't want to send a Sat because its date just commemorate my wedding day or something quite personal.
Well not quite interested in it been rare, just curious if the Bitcoin protocol allows such transactions.
So a third party is needed to accomplish this?

I don't think I understand the wedding sat or special sat.
the third party tools is all we have right now to help us differentiate the rares against regular sats.

[vjudeu]

He did not ever specify on or off chain or any specific restrictions in correlation to the use cases.

Then why he was against putting BitDNS on Bitcoin?

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.

See? If you want non-monetary use case, then use your own "dataset", to not disturb regular users, and take down their payments.

Edit:

Why did Satoshi not create a block explorer from Day Number 1?

1. Because everyone had a full node, so no "block explorer" was needed.
2. For a working system, you are mainly interested in your own coins. If you have enough knowledge, then you can explore someone else's transactions, but a regular user doesn't need that feature. If you use traditional cash, you are interested in your banknotes, and not in reading serial numbers, and guessing, which of your neighbours had it in the past.

What conversation did they have to determine a block explorer was required?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1727.0

How many people were interested in block explorers?

Mainly those, who wanted to observe their peers. If someone was interested only in its own wallet, then that person didn't think about any kind of block explorer. However, when more and more people thought, that everything is anonymous, and works like Monero, and nobody can see anything, behind its own coins, then it created some need, to show those people, that things can be traced, and that they should be more careful, when they make their payments.

Note that block explorer for Monero would be much less useful, than for Bitcoin.

A block explorer was eventually born to tag and identify transactions without depending on the Core Software.

If you are a user, then you don't need a full node, to use it. However, if someone wants to run a block explorer, then that person needs it, also because different nodes can have different mempools (and sometimes different blocks, until they are reorged).

you want to own a piece of history by owning a piece of Satoshi or Hal's sats, would you not?

Not really. And mining a lot of coins in testnets, clearly showed me, why it is the case. Every time, when one of my addresses is publicly connected, then I cannot use it anymore, and I have to switch into a different coins. And the same is true with coins, received from signature campaigns: I never know, how many people would explore my history, so I always assume, that every time, when I move those coins, it is obvious, that they are owned by me.

In case of test coins, it is easy: they are worthless, so I can just give them away (and call it: buying some anonymity). In case of mainnet, I usually deposit them somewhere, to then withdraw, at a different time, on a different end, or even as a payment to somebody. Because for someone, it may be valuable, to "touch vjudeu's coins", but for me, it is just some lost anonymity, and turned into pseudonymity.

[DenBlad]

Being against BitDNS was a very smart move, and I would be against it too. It's not really related here to rare sats because we have a way to discover and separate the two kinds of sats.
BitDNS is one of the reasons devs are moving to Bitcoin L2 that interact with a completely separate system while security of Bitcoin is the main focus instead.

Not everyone wants to own anything related to history. Not everyone can work at a Coffee Shop making Coffee for people all day. I would just argue it is safe to say, most Bitcoin enthusiasts that potentially believe in the long term growth of bitcoin, may want to look into Rare sats.  And just like a Block Explorer was born for ease of use without the technical aspect, a rare sats indexer and third party tools were born to give people the ability to identify them.

He did not ever specify on or off chain or any specific restrictions in correlation to the use cases.

Then why he was against putting BitDNS on Bitcoin?

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.

See? If you want non-monetary use case, then use your own "dataset", to not disturb regular users, and take down their payments.

Edit:

Why did Satoshi not create a block explorer from Day Number 1?

1. Because everyone had a full node, so no "block explorer" was needed.
2. For a working system, you are mainly interested in your own coins. If you have enough knowledge, then you can explore someone else's transactions, but a regular user doesn't need that feature. If you use traditional cash, you are interested in your banknotes, and not in reading serial numbers, and guessing, which of your neighbours had it in the past.

What conversation did they have to determine a block explorer was required?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1727.0

How many people were interested in block explorers?

Mainly those, who wanted to observe their peers. If someone was interested only in its own wallet, then that person didn't think about any kind of block explorer. However, when more and more people thought, that everything is anonymous, and works like Monero, and nobody can see anything, behind its own coins, then it created some need, to show those people, that things can be traced, and that they should be more careful, when they make their payments.

Note that block explorer for Monero would be much less useful, than for Bitcoin.

A block explorer was eventually born to tag and identify transactions without depending on the Core Software.

If you are a user, then you don't need a full node, to use it. However, if someone wants to run a block explorer, then that person needs it, also because different nodes can have different mempools (and sometimes different blocks, until they are reorged).

you want to own a piece of history by owning a piece of Satoshi or Hal's sats, would you not?

Not really. And mining a lot of coins in testnets, clearly showed me, why it is the case. Every time, when one of my addresses is publicly connected, then I cannot use it anymore, and I have to switch into a different coins. And the same is true with coins, received from signature campaigns: I never know, how many people would explore my history, so I always assume, that every time, when I move those coins, it is obvious, that they are owned by me.

In case of test coins, it is easy: they are worthless, so I can just give them away (and call it: buying some anonymity). In case of mainnet, I usually deposit them somewhere, to then withdraw, at a different time, on a different end, or even as a payment to somebody. Because for someone, it may be valuable, to "touch vjudeu's coins", but for me, it is just some lost anonymity, and turned into pseudonymity.

[vjudeu]

we have a way to discover and separate the two kinds of sats

No, because the system is arbitrary. It would be much better, if it would at least consider sighashes. If you have SIGHASH_ALL, then it means, that all inputs are used to create all outputs. And if you have SIGHASH_SINGLE|SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY, then the order of entries in a single transaction can be changed, which also affects, where each satoshi will go. Which means, that Ordinals are incompatible with CoinJoin, and other existing protocols.

More than that: they are incompatible with UTXO set rules, for example zero satoshis. And it is the case, even though I explicitly told Casey, that it could be a problem, and he ignored the problem altogether:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-February/019985.html

> The system sounds expensive eventually to cope with approximately 2,100,000,000,000,000 ordinals.
What about zero satoshis? There are transactions, where zero satoshis are created or moved. Typical users cannot do that, but miners can, we currently have such transactions in the blockchain, for example 9f0b871e28fa19e2308e2fa74243bf2dcf23b160754df847d5f1e41aabe499d1 (check the last two inputs).

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-February/019986.html

​What about zero satoshis?


A zero satoshi input or output carries no ordinals, so an ordinal index can
ignore them.

See? He was informed about the problem, did nothing about it, and the end result was quite easy to predict: https://github.com/supertestnet/breaker-of-jpegs

[quary.sats]

 Xverse warns you when spending those rare sats.

How do they define a rare Sats?
What about I don't want to send a Sat because its date just commemorate my wedding day or something quite personal.
Well not quite interested in it been rare, just curious if the Bitcoin protocol allows such transactions.
So a third party is needed to accomplish this?

https://docs.ordinals.com/ tells you what sat ranges your utxos contain. Example: https://ordinals.com/output/3ea3bc8d7991869294ce43450eefee0de47a592417a59bd440e7d15fe74f4824:15

This utxo has 600 sats: 45039459700-45039460300 (600 sats). There are 5000000000 mined in a block from the first epoch. You can observe that this particular utxo has satoshis from the first Bitcoin mined by satoshi in block 9.

If you want to preserve some rare sats (let's assume you find them in a bigger utxo), you can split that utxo into 3: sats before the offset of the ones you're interested in, sats that you're interested in, sats after the ones you're interested in. Then you keep the utxo with the sats ur interested in safe. there are already tools built for this.

[garlonicon]

If you want to preserve some rare sats (let's assume you find them in a bigger utxo), you can split that utxo into 3

Imagine how easier could it be, if only signed things would move. And if you would have to explicitly specify, what is moved, and where, for example as a commitment to R-value in a signature.

But instead, Ordinals force users to create more UTXOs, for no reason. Not to mention transactions, which store ASCII-encoded transaction data inside OP_RETURN, or even JSON files. Some people wonder, why sometimes fees are high. And the answer is simple: if you have a protocol, designed to bloat the chain, then it will take more space than needed, and increase fees for everyone, for no reason.

[quary.sats]

If you want to preserve some rare sats (let's assume you find them in a bigger utxo), you can split that utxo into 3

Imagine how easier could it be, if only signed things would move. And if you would have to explicitly specify, what is moved, and where, for example as a commitment to R-value in a signature.

But instead, Ordinals force users to create more UTXOs, for no reason. Not to mention transactions, which store ASCII-encoded transaction data inside OP_RETURN, or even JSON files. Some people wonder, why sometimes fees are high. And the answer is simple: if you have a protocol, designed to bloat the chain, then it will take more space than needed, and increase fees for everyone, for no reason.

I am 100% sure that if a more elegant model is designed for Bitcoin NFTs, it will be adopted in time. When somebody doesn't like an "innovation" that people use, the rational thing to do is design it in a better way. For some reason, laser eyes prefer to shout and cry in their podcasts, instead of creating the best version they can create that satisfies the market needs.

[vjudeu]

I am 100% sure that if a more elegant model is designed for Bitcoin NFTs, it will be adopted in time.

It won't, because the main goal for Ordinals was not to make NFTs. Their goal was to turn Bitcoin into a cloud storage. It was never about "ownership", it was always about "pushing data". And before Ordinals, there existed many NFT platforms, so it was not a problem, to design a system, where by signing a Bitcoin key, you would own some NFT on another chain. We even have pay-to-sudoku, since 2016.

But if your goal is to push data instead, then you don't care about ownership, which is why Ordinals don't care, who owns a particular satoshi (because if they would care, then that information would be expressed directly, instead of rolling a dice, and betting that the client will order all inputs, outputs and amounts correctly).

When somebody doesn't like an "innovation" that people use, the rational thing to do is design it in a better way.

The only reason why Bitcoin users would care about Ordinals, is that they take down regular payments. If not that, then nobody would care. For example, imagine a scenario, where this forum would be used as a cloud storage, instead of being used as a forum. Or when people would trade things for merits. Then, the role of forum users is not to "design it in a better way", but to "get rid of the abuse". And if accessing regular threads would be stopped, because of spam, then it would be rational, to introduce some kind of filters, and banning the spammers, to stop the abuse.

And the same thing could happen in Bitcoin, but people didn't want to stop the spam, for some reason.

For some reason, laser eyes prefer to shout and cry in their podcasts, instead of creating the best version they can create that satisfies the market needs.

There are some mining pools, which censor Ordinals. There are also some users, which stopped using Taproot, because of Ordinals. You want NFTs on Bitcoin? Then put your NFT on some existing platform, designed for NFTs, and then use some hash-locked contract (or even point-locked contract, since Taproot is there), to buy or sell those things, if you really want. If you put every data on-chain instead, then you take the room, reserved for other payments, and then, everyone will pay more fees, because of that.

So, the problem is not technical anymore, since many solutions were proposed. But if users don't want to adopt those solutions, then what else can be done? If you abuse the system, and take down regular payments, then the only rational answer, is to censor some Ordinals, to process regular payments faster. Fortunately, many Ordinals are now confirming in testnet3 instead, so the mainnet can enjoy cheaper transactions, at least for a while.