pull down to refresh
51 sats \ 20 replies \ @notgeld 22 Aug 2023 \ parent \ on: I was a well-paid blockchain / web3 dev for years, but became disillusioned. bitcoin
The simplest argument here is about bytes stored onchain. But it is not really an object which has value but the mere substance of it originality. All copies which may be put later onchain will be just copies that are younger and not original. Imagine that any sculpture occupies some space, now digital art occupies some specific time interval in the past.
Blockchain itself is the history and I do not talk about whatever external history you mean.
You can't prove that your bytes are the youngest in existence. There could be slightly different younger bytes. Change a pixel and it no longer matches, good luck digging through the blockchain looking for the earlier image (if it even exists at all). This way you can copy any NFT and without an external source of truth the buyer can't make sure your copy is fake. Scan the chain, find no matches, so it must be genuine, right? It's just spam and scam with no value except extracting sats from people believing in this shit, and they're left holding the bag. Oh, and new nodes need to waste bandwidth and storage on it too, even though it's most certainly isn't of any value to them.
reply
No, I can prove that my bytes are the youngest onchain. That's it and that is obvious.
If you change a pixel you create a copy and this is exactly what I am talking about: among certain subset of people original and copy may have different value.
You seem to not really grasping the essence because you insist on existence of some external oracles. I talk about bytes inside blockchain lets assume legacy block and block numbers that's it.
Oh, and new nodes need to waste bandwidth and storage on it too, even though it's most certainly isn't of any value to them.
Yes, and you know STAMPS as opposed to Inscriptions store data as invalid public keys not as single chunk of data in witness part. And this is what Poelstra was talking about even before STAMPs came out from nowhere: if you against Inscriptions somebody will invent even worse way to put something onchain.
reply
You either don't read what I write or don't understand it yourself. You can prove that your bytes are the youngest. You can't prove that these bytes are the youngest among the similar potentially existing bytes that represent similar pictures or other media. How do you prove that there's no image on blockchain that looks almost like yours but one pixel is a little different and it was posted a year ago (or 10 minutes before yours, who knows)? For now you can "just" find all inscriptions, run some algorithm to find the similar ones. As the chain grows it becomes harder and harder.
If I only have the blockchain and no other sources of information, how do I make sure your NFT is genuine? How do I make sure you're not scamming me by selling me a mirrored/rotated/scaled/modified version of the "real" NFT that was published years ago? Remember, all I have is the blockchain, nothing else. No websites, twitter posts, blogs, opinions of my friends, no news and marketplaces. You assume no external oracles are needed so it's just you, me and the blockchain. We're trading directly, p2p. So?
reply
No websites, twitter posts, blogs, opinions of my friends, no news and marketplaces. You assume no external oracles are needed so it's just you, me and the blockchain. We're trading directly, p2p. So?
You manipulate definitions to your benefit.
Strictly speaking even when using such term as oracle in this context, any non-standard not supported by Core wallet type must be considered useless. Looks like a stretch.
But even with that you have no power over people who decide to put (non)random bytes onchain because they like
0011 0011 0011 0011 or something else.reply
I only define things so that we exclude the non-blockchain things. Because if we include them, we can't rely on the blockchain anymore and can store all that outside of it as well. And it's true, if all you have is the blockchain you still can use it for monetary purposes because it validates itself without relying on the outside world. But not for anything else. You can duplicate NFTs, no sweat, but you can't duplicate sats.
Like I said, I can't (and shouldn't be able to) stop people from sending non-standard txs. But promoting their usage is encouraging spam and raising fees for no real (=useful) reason. Bitcoin is a monetary system, not an image store. While you still can do it, I will consider this spam and you, my enemy. Bitcoin is for enemies after all. That's all that I mean and I think I explained sufficiently why it is spam and why it doesn't belong in blockchain. Feel free to use IPFS or any other storage and MySQL/Postgres to track ownership of these useless images that will be forgotten in a couple of years. But don't pollute the most important global database that will last for centuries. Unless you're a bad actor that wants to slower the Bitcoin adoption which you might be.
reply
You can duplicate NFTs, no sweat, but you can't duplicate sats.
I can't duplicate sats but it doesn't mean that sats have any value in outside world.
While you still can do it, I will consider this spam and you, my enemy.
Equally you may begin considering multisigs as excessive way to transfer sats with negative external value (because of increased storage size) and declare multisigs as spam. This is sad to see how deeply confused you are and not about freedom and free-market at all.
Bitcoin blockchain is for any data, but the only way to put data there is to spend sats. If people see any value in timestamping (which they do with either Inscriptions or STAMPS) it is fine as long as they pay.
reply
Value is subjective, verification is objective. I can objectively and mathematically verify that a sat is genuine and not duplicated (probabilistically, of course), doesn't apply to NFTs at all. A multisig is a technical way to decentralize control, it has a clear purpose of improving security or enabling better scalability (Lightning). Spamming the chain with arbitrary data no one cares about has no use case. No one said that Bitcoin should store arbitrary data, even Satoshi was against that.
Like I said, I can't prevent that and I'm not gonna endorse it. On the opposite, I will discourage such usage and condemn this behavior if I encounter it. If anyone's confused here, that's you and other shitcoiners who want to pile up more trash on Bitcoin to extract value for themselves. Ultimately, all participating people will go broke, that's exactly what they deserve. Too bad this garbage will be preserved for ages but it'd be a good memorial to people stupidity and greed.
reply
Okay. There are several multisigs possible now in Bitcoin. One of them allows to use only one threshold key. So other methods seem to be inferior and excessive from that point.
But in fact what I am talking about is that Bitcoin is the clock, time-stamping mechanism for data and there is no point in looking at data as useless as long as somebody paid for them. They are useful for somebody.
Somebody may look at your transaction as useless and generally don't like you for example because you transact from addresses with too many bitcoins. Your point is only slightly different that that.
You can't prove that these bytes are the youngest among the similar potentially existing bytes that represent similar pictures or other media.
It is basic image classification task. If there are people who value originality they will value such service. Not like it is absolutely new. There is whole industry around this in physical art.
reply
These systems can be tricked and then again, if I monitor the mempool I can post a similar or a tx with the same image (or other payload) that will get into the same block. That way I can inflate the NFTs and without an oracle you wouldn't be able to tell which one is "genuine".
The physical art is the same scam mostly (imaginary value), except it's still easier to tell the age of a physical thing because it ages naturally unlike the numbers that age artificially and can be manipulated (as I described above).
reply
Well, this is a fact that NFTs come in series sometimes. So, creators sort of undermine originality in favor to accessibility.
And you are wrong about physical art. Otherwise all these staffed museums wouldn't be needed at all. The expertise is a big industry around auctions and really good copies of masterpieces periodically float on.
reply
It's all the same fiat shit, hard and expensive to verify. Create an industry to solve imaginary problems. Authenticity of art is not a problem unless you want to profit from it by selling not the art, but it's "genuineness". It's a fiat mindset that has no place in Bitcoin, because every sat is already genuine by definition if it's recognized by your node. No additional verification is required. NFTs bring back this convoluted process of looking for some vague truth that can't even be properly defined outside of court. Same shitcoinery as BSV basically, and it's not a coincidence that NFTs would thrive on a big block shitchain.
reply
Art and demand for authenticity existed long before fiat money and even the Bank of England. I am sorry, i think you have no point here.