pull down to refresh

what's your opinion on ordinals & using bitcoin's timechain to store nft
244 sats \ 14 comments \ @based58 31 Jan 2023 bitcoin
i'm curious to know what is the opinion of SN users on this topic, please comment below
should bitcoin's timechain be used to store nfts or jpg? do you think it would cause more drawbacks (blockchain bloat, high fees) or advantages (maybe more adoption)? should bitcoin be sound money or try to be a broader platform capable of supporting things it was not initially intended for ?
im just asking to see what bitcoiners here think
write
preview
related posts
140 sats \ 2 replies \ @NorthKoreanHostage 31 Jan 2023
Blockchain, not timechain.
Money first. No bullshit.
You're free to do what you want.
Block space costs money.
reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @petertodd 1 Feb 2023
Timechain is a terrible term.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @falsefaucet 31 Jan 2023
timechain.
reply
15 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheL0wner 31 Jan 2023
nft bros are inescapable it would seem. wish they'd stick to shitcoins. or at least limit it to utility nfts, not "art".
reply
60 sats \ 0 replies \ @Memehound 31 Jan 2023
I find ordinal theory per se to be quite elegant. Its 'discovery' seems inevitable. Blocks will remain capped at 4mb, so no bloating. It might complement miner incentives and spur adoption looking forward. It is not mutually exclusive to Bitcoin's sound money value proposition. Serialising an individual sat doens't necessarily negate its fungibility use case. Nobody yet fully grasps the revolutionary potential of Bitcoin. Dogmatically sticking with presuppostions of what it should be, stifles the discovery process.
reply
15 sats \ 3 replies \ @ama 31 Jan 2023
I'm not very interested in NFT, really, I'm much more eager for the exact oposite, fungibility, which is an important feature of money, in my opinion.
Nonetheless, I se the interest of NFT, of course, and I can see a few definite uses for them (tickets to events, transportation, reservations, deeds, maybe even some form of contracts, etc.
Perhaps a second or third layer solution would be better for most cases, mainly to represent short term items, although for long term documents representing expensive items, like a property deed or something like that, I can see the point in using Bitcoin's layer 1. You'd want the highest possible security and the block space price would be very reasonable.
I wouldn't trust my house deed to a PoS (piece of Shoooot!) thingy, of course, but I'd have peace of mind trusting it to BTC or LTC layer 1.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @based58 OP 31 Jan 2023
id like to just comment that any NFT that is pegged to an asset (or anything) outside the "blockchain" is a terrible idea. A distributed system that uses blockchain in order to be decentralized can only ensure the decentralization within the system; anything outside the system is out of control. If you have a system with several components, several of those components very decentralized but one of them very centralized, then the system is centralized! NFT pegged to real world things are centralized because the physical owner of the thing ultimately decides what to do with it, regardless of the code rules in the "blockchain". In the physical world, what decides if you own something (legimatelly or not) is your ability to use force/coercion to prevent others from taking that thing from you. Digital systems can never ensure ownserhip of physical things, thus it makes no sense to use inefficient decentralized systems for that matter. Tickets, reservations, etc, should be implemented in centralized systems for the sake of efficiency; trying to use decentralized system for NFT pegged to real world things is a failed attempt because in the end it still is centralized (in the case of tickets, the event owners decide if you get in or not, samething for hotel reservations, real state onwership, company shares, etc). NFT has no use whatsoever outside its own system, the token the NFT represents must live inside its blockchain system in order for it to be decentralized, otherwise it is just bullshit told by liars or ignorants
reply
5 sats \ 1 reply \ @ama 31 Jan 2023
The Bitcoin blockchain is the document where BTC ownership is stored, and you prove ownership by means of signing transactions. If the real world decides that the Bitcoin ledger is the oficial document to store ownership of a physical asset, there is probably no better place to peg an asset to, since there is no better ledger than the Bitcoin blockchain.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kandycoder 31 Jan 2023
Agree. Wish a lawyer would comment on how this might work together with the current legal systems of the world.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @zman 31 Jan 2023
https://media.tenor.com/kbQv5cIBq8IAAAAC/the-office-steve-carell.gif
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @falsefaucet 31 Jan 2023
being able to identify one satoshi from another is an attack on fungibility.
am i over-reacting?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @monk_cactus 31 Jan 2023
The entire concept of NFT art is stupidity borne out of misunderstandings about what a blockchain is, and what it's good for.
With time, these misunderstandings will be cleared up, and NFTs as we know them will fade into obscurity. There is no threat to bitcoin here. This stuff will never be viable in a high fee market.
As for the act of putting random data into the chain, using ordinals or OP_RETURN, I think it's kind of cool. Someone called it graffiti on the blockchain, and I think that's a good way to look at it. Sometimes graffiti is cool, and sometimes it's obnoxious.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 31 Jan 2023
shitcoiners trying to shitcoinize the bitcoin world. That's all. NOISE
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @malak212_aau 31 Jan 2023 freebie
I think adding something to it might lead to higher fees.