pull down to refresh
129 sats \ 21 replies \ @melvincarvalho 1 Dec \ on: Cobra says developers are working to activate CTV bitdevs
Bitcoin doesnt need a soft fork
Taproot brought a handful of unexpected consequences (ordinals, etc)....I wonder what unknown side-effects CTV will bring?
reply
Taproot didn't bring ordinals.
reply
Hmm...really?
why are the leading ordinal group named Taproot Wizards?
reply
Ordinals has nothing to do with Taproot. I guess you mean Inscriptions. Taproot didn't make them possible, Taproot made them possible cheaper.
reply
My understanding is that it's the other way around.
Segwit made them cheaper... and taproot made them possible.
Taproot loosened the scripting language... to allow for arbitrary data.
And segwit allowed for larger amounts of data overall (to make Lightning possible at a later date) as well as making data cheaper to add to blocks (up to 4mb total).
Then crypto people came along later to sell jpegs to idiots. They did it on ethereum, then it got old. Now they've tried it on Bitcoin... and eventually people will figure out it's dumb and move on. Each inscription created, much less sold, is someone losing money. Eventually they run out of money. Rare sats, ordinal numbering schemes, memecoins... they're all the same.
They each cost the 'buyer' in opportunity cost by overpaying greatly for certain sats.. leaving them with fewer sats. Eventually they run out and the nfts are forgotten about.
reply
No, Taproot just removed limits on script size. But you could store the same amount of data in multiple transactions instead of one.
reply
And segwit allowed for larger amounts of data overall (to make Lightning possible at a later date)
Lightning didn't need larger blocks but the transaction malleability fix that SegWit included:
While transactions are signed, the signature does not currently cover all the data in a transaction that is hashed to create the transaction hash. Thus, while uncommon, it is possible for a node on the network to change a transaction you send in such a way that the hash is invalidated. Note that this just changes the hash; the output of the transaction remains the same and the bitcoins will go to their intended recipient.
Before SegWit, tx ids were malleable and thus a lightning node could lose track of its channel open tx (and any txs that depend on it) while it's getting confirmed.
reply
Thank you I did not know this. Learn something new every day.
reply
It was witness data from Segwit fork “Ordinals were made possible by two updates to the Bitcoin Protocol: Segregated Witness (SegWit) in 2017 and Taproot in 2021. These updates expanded the amount of arbitrary data that could be stored on the blockchain, allowing for the inclusion of images, videos, and other media types. While these updates were not specifically intended for NFTs, they inadvertently provided the necessary infrastructure for ordinals and inscriptions to exist.”
reply
Segwit was activated in 2017
Taproot was activated in 2021
I accept that Taproot used features of Segwit in order to use Ordinals....however trying to claim that "Segwit didn't enable Ordinals" seems pretty suspect.
reply
reply
reply
with a limited/smaller 'witness' size...
wouldn't 'inscriptions' still be possible anyway?
Just way more expensive, requiring more inputs and more transactions?
most of the 'arb data' these days is Runes, which don't use ordinals theory or witness data just op_return
My understanding is that it's impossible to 'track sats'.
Ordinals assumes first in first out with regard to inputs and outputs... but that's not the way Bitcoin works it's completely arbitrary.
The 'first sat' of the first input of a coinjoin... is not the same as the 'first sat' of the first output... They are NOT the same and 'ordinals theory' assumes that they are. They are not they cannot be tracked that way. It is a completely dumb idea.
It's a bad, old, chainanal idea which was dropped in 2013.
https://youtu.be/596InlNtfD0?si=pwj-KZgu-kuTPe_q
reply
You are right; it is completely arbitrary, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. Ordinals are simply a scheme that people running
ord agree upon to track sats, and because of this agreement, it works among them.They are not they cannot be tracked that way. It is a completely dumb idea.
Well, obviously they can—that’s why you’re able to trade inscriptions. The market is proving you wrong.
My understanding is that it's impossible to 'track sats'.
Ordinals assumes first in first out with regard to inputs and outputs... but that's not the way Bitcoin works it's completely arbitrary.
The 'first sat' of the first input of a coinjoin... is not the same as the 'first sat' of the first output... They are NOT the same and 'ordinals theory' assumes that they are. They are not they cannot be tracked that way. It is a completely dumb idea.
It's a bad, old, chainanal idea which was dropped in 2013.
https://youtu.be/596InlNtfD0?si=pwj-KZgu-kuTPe_q
reply
100% agree
reply