[temperature checking]: Inscribe or not to inscribe? \ stacker news ~bitcoin

[temperature checking]: Inscribe or not to inscribe?

228 sats \ 10 comments \ @eddieoz 25 Mar bitcoin

Today, during my livestream, some viewers requested the ebook as an autographed inscription.

While inscribing the entire ebook is not feasible due to the fees, and I doubt anyone from my audience would be willing to pay for such a large inscription, there is an alternative solution.

It is possible to upload the book to another shared and decentralized filesystem (ipfs, arweave, etc) and then create a text inscription pointing to that location. This approach would require slightly more bytes than an OP_RETURN, but it would offer the possibility of transferring ownership of the personalised ebook.

Without causing any spam, I am considering exploring this option. If anyone has thoughts or opinions on this matter, please feel free to share them here.

view all related items

31 sats \ 5 replies \ @premitive1 25 Mar

"without causing any spam" That's a very debatable contention. On several levels. Pointer links on the blockchain are exactly what NFTs have been on ethereum, and a criticism of such NFTs. Even if pointing to IPFS, one can imagine the content on IPFS changing, and the pointer now pointing to something else. Is a pointer spam? If the blockchain is the museum, imagine going to museum and instead of finding a work of art you find a URL pointing to the file somewhere else. So while you're not excited in paying high fees to put audio data on the blockchain, how is a pointer not worse? Imagine the blockchain full of pointers. Some of the people using the word spam think that any non-financial use of bitcoin is spam.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @eddieoz OP 25 Mar

you have good points. the only thing about ipfs, the pointer is a hash of the file, so there is no way of having the same pointer directing to another file. but I agree about the museum parallel.

your points make sense, and I follow the discussions about what can characterize spam since the counterparty war in 2014. it is a dense topic in bitcoin.

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @premitive1 25 Mar

why don't you use counterparty?

13 sats \ 0 replies \ @eddieoz OP 25 Mar

counterparty is an option, also raretoshi as suggested by DarthCoin below.

I will check back with the community about the options. I need to understand if the person asking is just a degen or if they really value having a tokenized version of the autographed book on their wallets.

As I live far from the community, they asked to have an alternative of a signed book, in digital format. That's why I'm evaluating options and thinking about whether to do it on Bitcoin. I also have been reluctant to incentivize inscriptions.

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @premitive1 25 Mar

ipfs still requires an address to find, no? or does it have a search function that allows you to find files by their hash?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @eddieoz OP 25 Mar

the address is based on the hash of the document. it is unique for each document and used also to avoid storing duplicates.

21 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 25 Mar

Use https://opentimestamps.org/

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @eddieoz OP 25 Mar

Yeah, I'm aware of opentimestamps, and I have a project using btc op_return running since 2015 to authenticate docs.

The audience asked for a personalised inscription to have on their wallets (probably degens).

I have a view about spamming the network like ordinals and inscriptions are doing in general. But maybe a few bytes in text mode, costing extra ~9k sats (I just discovered) is not a problem. But I'm not fully convinced.