832 sats \ 9 replies \ @DarthCoin 1 Feb 2023
They just paid a 900k sats fee.
So what's the problem here?
Bitcoin blocks space is a market place.
Yes, I don't like useless crap on the blockchain, but is still a fee market. They paid the fee? Fine, let them see if they can sustain this expensive crap...
Soon will be just a fade joke, like it was for many years,
Posting pictures on the blockchain is not from now, is even from 2015...
@petertodd also explain it very clearly here
https://twitter.com/peterktodd/status/1619692068519149568
reply
166 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 1 Feb 2023
Yes, people talking about how great bitcoin is because it's permissionless (among other things) but still being outraged because of ordinals or NFTs on bitcoin are hilarious.
I don't think they understood what "permissionless" means.
This whole discussion reminds me a lot of this quote:
https://i.postimg.cc/3xhshMtV/C6ux-UHV0-AA1-SRn.jpg
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @elonmusk 1 Feb 2023
i love her
reply
51 sats \ 1 reply \ @benthecarman 2 Feb 2023
I think the main problem people have here is from the witness discount. Normal full blocks are around 1-2 mb, but with inscriptions using primarily witness data, they are paying similar fees as normal transactions but taking up way more space.
reply
257 sats \ 0 replies \ @petertodd 2 Feb 2023
The witness discount is fair. Witness data impacts Bitcoin much less than UTXO data, as the latter has to be stored in much more expensive memory with good random access performance, ideally volatile RAM. Witness data by comparison can be stored on cheap, slow, hard drives without issue.
If anything, the 75% discount understates the difference in cost.
reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @gandlaf21 2 Feb 2023
I completely agree. I was kinda surprised to see guys like adam back and such calling for censorship.
code is law
reply
1 sat \ 3 replies \ @Murch 2 Feb 2023
Luxor may have accepted an out-of-band payment, but the transaction paid a fee of 0 sats: https://mempool.space/tx/0301e0480b374b32851a9462db29dc19fe830a7f7d7a88b81612b9d42099c0ae
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 2 Feb 2023
Yeah saw it, I really don't know how a tx could be mined without a miner fee, except that was broadcast and mined by the same miner. Otherwise no miner would accept it.
reply
36 sats \ 1 reply \ @petertodd 2 Feb 2023
More to the point, the tx wouldn't be mined without a fee because other txs would always outbid it. The mempool is never that empty.
The actual cost of that tx in terms of expected fee revenue has been estimated to be about $2000. Likely that Luxor was paid out of band, and/or did it because it's funny.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @rax0m 2 Feb 2023
Well, if the mempool clears from a mined block it will be almost empty for the next minute or so.
Meaning, the agreement could have been "only mine this block if the total fees that you would get from a normal block is less than 100k sats"
It would take longer but with the current fee market it would have been mined eventually (mempool frequently empty recently) for a cost of $20. Or take 10x on the numbers then $200 but the expected time to mine it is divided by 10.
reply
55 sats \ 2 replies \ @21stackage 2 Feb 2023
This was the culprit:
https://i.postimg.cc/pXYShQ9V/Fn6-RFcu-Xg-AAz-ALP.jpg
lmaoreply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @IanMalcolmPhd 2 Feb 2023
There are 3300 right now:
https://ordinals.com/inscriptions/
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0350c31cf0 2 Feb 2023 freebie
hahaha
84 sats \ 0 replies \ @036644cfc0 1 Feb 2023
That's good right? We will start to have competition for fees.
To secure the network, on-chain transaction fees need to increase 1000x
They're way too cheap at the moment, thanks to all the scaling improvements and L2 usage.
reply
42 sats \ 0 replies \ @2big2fail 2 Feb 2023
i wish i mined that block
reply
125 sats \ 20 replies \ @cryptocoin 2 Feb 2023
I'm now all for Luke Jr's soft fork that will shrink the block size to 200K (or whatever number makes sense).
reply
25 sats \ 1 reply \ @rijndael 2 Feb 2023
Why would that help? People will still put things you dont like onchain
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @cryptocoin 2 Feb 2023
Yes, but with current block size usage, there's not much of a fee market and thus they can do their games for a (relatively) cheap amount. Shrink the max blocksize and the fee per vByte spikes.
Someone wants to pay $2K to stuff in a jpg? Well, miners will be happy (as that is additional tx fee income), but I bet there won't be many more jpegs added due to the cost.
reply
25 sats \ 17 replies \ @shyfire 2 Feb 2023
Yeah... It's a big fuckup if Bitcoiners start larping about rock JPEGs instead of figuring out how they can transact in a sovereign way
reply
46 sats \ 16 replies \ @DarthCoin 2 Feb 2023
Let's be clear: those posting jpegs on the blockchain ARE NOT bitcoiners. Are just idiot shitcoiners trying to shitcoinize the bitcoin world.
A sane real bitcoiner will not do such thing.
reply
25 sats \ 0 replies \ @pourteaux 2 Feb 2023
bitcoin is permissionless
reply
68 sats \ 4 replies \ @rijndael 2 Feb 2023
People can use bitcoin for whatever they want. Some bitcoiners are putting JPEGs on the blockchain precisely because people like you are trying to tell them what not to do.
reply
221 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 2 Feb 2023
That's the whole point: those people are not real bitcoiners. Are just shitcoiners pretending to be bitcoiners and trying to shitcoinize the Bitcoin world.
As I said, a real bitcoiner, would have a decent morality and not doing such useless thing.
reply
25 sats \ 1 reply \ @rijndael 3 Feb 2023
is bitcoin money for everyone, or money for people with your moral bent?
reply
25 sats \ 0 replies \ @coinward 8 Feb 2023
gatekeepers like gatekeeping
reply
25 sats \ 0 replies \ @shyfire 2 Feb 2023
Correct. Code is law. But there is also not just the technical law, there is the common sense context behind the law or so called "spirit of the law"
This goes against Bitcoin's "spirit"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purposive_approach
reply
33 sats \ 7 replies \ @Ed_Relight 2 Feb 2023
And who are you to be the judge of that?
"Permissionless" and "Censorship-resistant" are exactly the properties which make Bitcoin the best money.
reply
25 sats \ 0 replies \ @shyfire 2 Feb 2023
How do rock jpegs help Bitcoin be the best money?
reply
26 sats \ 5 replies \ @DarthCoin 2 Feb 2023
Its' about being moral.
Or you don't know what means that word "morality"?
reply
26 sats \ 4 replies \ @Ed_Relight 2 Feb 2023
Morality is irrelevant in a trustless system, which Bitcoin is, and, I hope, will continue to be
reply
25 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 2 Feb 2023
You are wrong. Bitcoin must be used with morality behind.
Trust it doesn't mean moral. Are two different things.
A world without morality is a doomed world. Look around you. What you see? A fucked up world, because people do not have morality.
What is morality?
reply
25 sats \ 2 replies \ @snakedye 2 Feb 2023
If Bitcoin requires its users to be morally sound to work, it's garbage. It must work in spite of it.
view replies
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @rax0m 2 Feb 2023
deleted by author
reply
25 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 2 Feb 2023
↓Who is a bitcoiner?
Using bitcoin for doing useless crap like those pictures it is shitcoinery.
reply
5 sats \ 3 replies \ @orthwyrm 2 Feb 2023
Someone could stir a lot of shit by cementing images of something awful (like CP) into the blockchain, for very little cost. Could node runners be targeted for hosting illicit images?
reply
180 sats \ 1 reply \ @petertodd 2 Feb 2023
That's been possible since day zero. Indeed, I've seen claims that someone already has published CP in the blockchain, though I haven't bothered to try to verify that myself.
You can hide illicit images in all kinds of public archives. For example, you can easily hide stuff in git commits – my OpenTimestamps actually takes advantage of this to timestamp git commits. Due to how git works, it's very annoying to remove as you'd have to rewrite the entire repo past the point the data was added.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @orthwyrm 2 Feb 2023
Yeah, you're right. I knew it had always been possible to commit arbitrary data to the blockchain, but until now I figured there was a cap or something (i.e. not approaching the 4 Mb limit!). I didn't realise this has always been possible.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @weatherall 2 Feb 2023
yeah here's the TU video exploring such dangers : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJr8yUf3dYk
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @muteness11 2 Feb 2023
Bitcoin is open to EVERYONE ... accept that and move on :)
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0350c31cf0 2 Feb 2023 freebie
Agree.
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @2bithits 2 Feb 2023
I'm interested to know how they did it.
My guess is that they paid a miner (in fiat or another sh$tcoin) to get it through. Possibly as a marketing stunt
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @cryptocoin 2 Feb 2023
Luxor mining pool. And yes -- probably a marketing stunt, or maybe some strategic reasoning. Who knows.
I bet they eventually regret doing it though.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @chungkingexpress 2 Feb 2023
Can someone please ELI5 how do you go about "minting ordinals"?
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @rax0m 2 Feb 2023
Maybe this will help.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @IanMalcolmPhd 2 Feb 2023
I can see a future where one Satoshi is so valuable that there has to be a Bitcoin 2/1 or 10/1 split. Which Satoshi would receive the ordinal at that point? I guess it doesn't matter as the same wallet would receive the split sats.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @cryptocoin 2 Feb 2023
Stratum V2 fixes this.
So does bitcoin gaining traction such that a fee market pushes out the jpegs.
But who knows how long until that will happen. Reducing the block size in the interim might make sense.
Either way .. meh.
reply
25 sats \ 1 reply \ @0350c31cf0 2 Feb 2023
Reducing the block size? Is this a serious take?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @cryptocoin 2 Feb 2023
Luke Dash Jr has been wanting this for half a decade. And it gets rehashed each time some bogus use of the scarce block space happens where things other than bitcoin transactions end up being included (such as the Veriblock transactions in 2018/2019).
Here's one approach:
https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/1093149623307431936 [Nitter]
Now as far as this being a "serious take"? Not really, but it is not something being dismissed entirely either:
https://twitter.com/ProgrammableTx/status/1089349106743443456 [Nitter]
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0350c31cf0 2 Feb 2023 freebie
Interesting. I'm really curious how this plays out.