pull down to refresh

102 sats \ 11 replies \ @Rsync25 OP 1 Dec \ parent \ on: Cobra says developers are working to activate CTV bitdevs
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.”
write
preview
128 sats \ 10 replies \ @freetx 1 Dec
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
147 sats \ 9 replies \ @ek 1 Dec
I think you're confusing inscriptions with ordinals. Inscriptions use ordinals but ordinals didn't need SegWit or Taproot. Ordinals is just a "numbering scheme for satoshis that allows tracking and transferring individual sats", see docs.
reply
33 sats \ 1 reply \ @kruw 1 Dec
Inscriptions don't need Segwit or Taproot either. Segwit just discounts the witness data and Taproot just removes the max witness size.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 1 Dec
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
reply
10 sats \ 5 replies \ @028559d218 1 Dec
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
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @ek 1 Dec
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.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @028559d218 1 Dec
Put an inscription utxo into a Coinjoin, in the WabiSabi type or the Joinmarket type... and it gets completely lost.
Ordinal theory cannot survive lightning channel opens and closes and it cannot survive coinjoins. The 'tracking' does not work because the 'first in' and the 'first out' are not the same sats it is ridiculous.
People believing in 'ordinal theory' in my opinion are idiots and they don't know their Bitcoin history. Ordinals is an nft fad... and like nfts 99% are worthless or soon worthless after creation. Anything that happened to 'nfts' will happen to ordinal nfts too... and they will 99% go away in time.
The same with memecoins. It is cheaper to gamble on Solana than on Bitcoin via Runes (Op_return) and the gamblers will run out of money. The fee revenue will go to miners in the meantime and scaling solutions will develop (like I just posted about).
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek 1 Dec
Ordinal theory cannot survive lightning channel opens and closes and it cannot survive coinjoins.
It can. I don't think you understand how ordinals work to be honest. It' s a very simple scheme that works for any type of onchain transaction therefore it doesn't matter if it's a coinjoin, channel open/close or whatever.
The 'tracking' does not work because the 'first in' and the 'first out' are not the same sats it is ridiculous.
Again, it doesn't matter if you think it's ridiculous, it works nonetheless if there's consensus that they are indeed the same sats. Maybe taking a look at https://ordiscan.com/blocks would help you understand.
I will not respond further, as I prefer not to waste my time with someone who has not done their due diligence before resorting to calling others idiots.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @028559d218 1 Dec
I am not an expert. But Giacomo is and I believe he is correct, everything said and done.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 1 Dec
I see, your argument is "proof of authority" instead of understanding yourself how ordinals work. Maybe watch this, that helped me to understand:
reply on another page
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 1 Dec
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