Inscribe the planet: an online tool for inscriptions with no need to sync a node \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

Topher Scott and I created this tool to make inscriptions easier on people. In the early days of inscriptions, you needed to download ord wallet, download bitcoin core, sync the blockchain, index all transactions as well as all existing inscriptions, or use a custodian who would do that for you. This new tool runs entirely in javascript on your own browser. It connects to mempool.space's api to get a transaction index, block data, and to broadcast transactions, and the server it runs on does not hold your keys! Non-custody is the way!

If you've been hestitant to try out inscriptions, give it a try. I made an inscription yesterday and sent it to an ordinals wallet I created at ordinalswallet.com.

This paragraph may interest developers: inscribetheplanet.com is based on a new javascript library called bton, which stands for bitcoin transaction object notation. This is an excellent tool by my friend Topher which makes it easy to use various taproot tricks in the browser. It supports creating taproot addresses, tapscript trees, schnorr signatures, address validation, and many other nifty features. Give it a try! https://www.npmjs.com/package/@cmdcode/bton

Here is the github repo for this particular project (inscribe the planet) that uses the bton library: https://github.com/supertestnet/inscriptions-online/

view all related items

295 sats \ 24 replies \ @DarthCoin 14 Mar 2023

You should concentrate into making really useful software for Bitcoin adoption and especially for merchants, NOT this crap with ordinals and inscriptions.

People need to use Bitcoin as money, in real life, not for these useless crap things.

108 sats \ 23 replies \ @super_testnet OP 14 Mar 2023

I think I do concentrate on really useful software Darth, let me explain one of the reasons why I built this

I consider inscriptions a vulnerability in bitcoin, they make it worse money and highlight the drawbacks of segwit's blocksize increase. In order to build support for at least a partial mitigation (like reducing the blocksize again) I think exploit tools for this vulnerability are very useful. They highlight a problem that (imo) ought to be addressed.

4 sats \ 13 replies \ @DarthCoin 14 Mar 2023

Increase use of Bitcoin = increase space used in blocks. That's how you solve this problem, not with these shity inscriptions.

There are many more things to be done for Bitcoin adoption. There's too much paid attention to these crap inscriptions, for nothing. More attention = idiots will exploit it.

Just leave the market decide and do not encourage idiots.

Super... I know you. You are capable to do great things. Don't lower your level with these craps.

31 sats \ 12 replies \ @super_testnet OP 14 Mar 2023

More attention = idiots will exploit it

I agree and that is why I built this, to make it easier for idiots to exploit this vulnerability

I think that is important to do because it can have two positive results: either it demonstrates that this vulnerability is serious, leading to a mitigation, or it demonstrates that this vulnerability is insignificant, meaning there is no need to fix it

If inscriptions are really a vulnerability -- as I strongly suspect they are -- then I think they need more attention, not less

Fixing parts of bitcoin that seem broken is a priority for me

10 sats \ 11 replies \ @BITC0IN 14 Mar 2023

This is an interesting level of logic I'm not sure I share. accelerationism always seemed nihilistic and naïve to me, and is potentially a cover for ones real motivations.

Quite frankly, I don't believe you.

You know this is a vulnerability, and you know how it can be used as one. So do I. The fact that we're not making a CVE out of this is because we're just dicking around hoping no one catches on to how it can be deployed maliciously, while also hoping our enemies don't have the balls to do it if they do know.

But murphy's law is a bitch.

Congrats on enabling the coming attack, I guess.

21 sats \ 8 replies \ @super_testnet OP 14 Mar 2023

Congrats on enabling the coming attack, I guess.

Thanks, I guess

0 sats \ 7 replies \ @BITC0IN 14 Mar 2023

You're responsible.

30 sats \ 5 replies \ @super_testnet OP 14 Mar 2023

I gladly take full responsibility and 100% of the blame

or honor

whichever

view replies

22 sats \ 0 replies \ @random_ 15 Mar 2023

Cringe take.

Bitcoin is a 14 year old geek freshman at Money Highschool. It can and should be bullied. Support doesnt make you stronger. Resistance does.

reply on another page

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 14 Mar 2023

hoping no one catches on to how it can be deployed maliciously [...] while also hoping our enemies don't have the balls to do it if they do know.

That's not how security works. That sounds a lot like "security by obscurity" which is heavily frowned upon in the itsec community (for good reasons).

I totally can understand why @super_testnet did this. I just don't agree it's a problem and see more risk in enabling censorship if we do something about this.

However, if inscriptions are really as bad as some think, bring it on. The earlier, the better. I think that's the same reasoning as @super_testnet has.

This post can be compared to LNsploit, I guess.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BITC0IN 14 Mar 2023

That's not how security works. That sounds a lot like "security by obscurity" which is heavily frowned upon in the itsec community (for good reasons).

I don't disagree, but that's what I'm seeing how the collective is essentially treating this situation, otherwise they're entirely missing how this can be used as an attack.

However, if inscriptions are really as bad as some think, bring it on. The earlier, the better.

In this case, I disagree. no one is ready for this kind of attack. many are in denial about it.

5 sats \ 1 reply \ @falsefaucet 14 Mar 2023

sheit the only positive of this ordinal shit was they had to run a full node.

338 sats \ 0 replies \ @super_testnet OP 14 Mar 2023

that was an illusory positive because inscriptions do not in fact require running your own node

now that it's clearer that inscriptions are a net negative, consider joining my campaign to mitigate them via a blocksize decrease

we meet on stacker news daily to argue with people who are wrong on the internet

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @kenn_b 14 Mar 2023

I was about to ask what is the point, but your reasoning makes sense. Let's see what happens

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @ek 14 Mar 2023

Are you really in favor of doing a hard fork to decrease blocksize just because of inscriptions / ordinals?

(Correct me if I am wrong, but to my understanding, it will be a hard fork since blocks bigger than the new smaller size won't be valid anymore)

That sounds like total overkill to me. They are paying for block space. It's not an attack.

SegWit enabled Lightning Network. The current situation just tells us we should use it more imo.

31 sats \ 3 replies \ @super_testnet OP 14 Mar 2023

A blocksize decrease is a soft fork because old nodes won't reject smaller blocks as if they were invalid -- when they see a small block they think "that's fine, there's no rule that says blocks have to be huge, they're just allowed to be"

A soft fork is a new restriction on bitcoin blocks or their contents, done in such a way that old nodes still see all the new block contents as perfectly valid

A hard fork removes a restriction on bitcoin blocks or their contents, done in such a way that old nodes see the new block contents as invalid because they break a rule that those nodes still enforce

They are paying for block space. It's not an attack.

It's not an intentional attack (except when I do it I suppose, because I explicitly intend it as an attack) but it does dump jpegs on bitcoin's blockchain so that it is harder to run a node. I run a node because I want bitcoin to be the best money it can be. To the extent that it is also a storehouse for monkey jpegs my motivation to participate falls a bit, because to me that "storing other people's random files" is a poor reason to run a node. I don't mind storing other people's transactions, even when it's somewhat hard on my machine, because doing so helps me know that my coins are valid. I do mind storing their nfts because there is no benefit to me.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek 14 Mar 2023

A soft fork is a new restriction on bitcoin blocks or their contents, done in such a way that old nodes still see all the new block contents as perfectly valid

A hard fork removes a restriction on bitcoin blocks or their contents, done in such a way that old nodes see the new block contents as invalid because they break a rule that those nodes still enforce

Okay, makes sense from a full node perspective. But I was thinking about miners: Any miner which produces a block bigger than your new smaller limit will be incompatible with your fork.

So there will be one fork mining small blocks and one fork mining big blocks, no?

And not only one chain which everyone sees valid like in a soft fork.

382 sats \ 1 reply \ @super_testnet OP 14 Mar 2023

All soft forks impose new restrictions on miners that they have to follow to stay in consensus. E.g. the segwit softfork took bc1 addresses -- which used to be "anyone can spend" addresses, because you could spend them without a signature -- and made it so you could only spend them if you put a signature in the witness data. At the time, miners running an old node still "thought" they were anyone_can_spend addresses, but if they had ever tried creating a block spending one without a signature, upgraded nodes would have considered that block invalid.

So when a soft fork happens it is important for every miner to update their nodes otherwise they can mine invalid blocks and the network will reject them...and they will lose money

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 14 Mar 2023

Ah okay, I see. I think that's also why we had miners signalling for taproot, right? It was a soft fork but as you explained it, miners still need to agree.

Thanks for the explanation!

Edit: Lol, just noticed they posted a video on https://taproot.watch/

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @shibe 15 Mar 2023 freebie

I don't really understand the freakout over ordinals. The way I see it, it's a way to pad out any unused space in blocks with more "transactions"

Considering we're also still in a bear market and a lot of miners are hurting, the increased fees helps decentralization too. Also, minting inscriptions is way too inefficient above a certain feerate. Most ordinals seem to hover around the 1-4 sat/vB mark, so a higher feerate would reduce ordinals usage anyways

12 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheBTCManual 14 Mar 2023

If someone wants to pay 29 to 100 sats per vbyte who am I to stop them? You go right ahead and mint your sats, to each their own as long as they pay the price and not me

2 sats \ 3 replies \ @nym 14 Mar 2023

Hug of death

2 sats \ 2 replies \ @super_testnet OP 14 Mar 2023

I had to look up this term because I am not familiar with it

For those not familiar, it means a site went down due to a sudden influx of traffic

The site briefly went down for about two minutes because while fixing a bug I accidentally deleted most of the code and then had to restore it from github

Try again

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @nym 14 Mar 2023

It worked successfully for me. Thank you for your service.

https://ordinals.com/inscription/a99969e758975d5bb26b605e98b92d57b68ed639002731f4bdd3c6476aa9865di0

5 sats \ 0 replies \ @TonyGiorgio 14 Mar 2023

Please delete it again

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @DopeCoinz 16 Mar 2023

Are you on nostr? I want to follow you on there

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @super_testnet OP 16 Mar 2023

npub1yxp7j36cfqws7yj0hkfu2mx25308u4zua6ud22zglxp98ayhh96s8c399s

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Zepasta 16 Mar 2023

What's the size limit?

1 sat \ 2 replies \ @super_testnet OP 16 Mar 2023

350 kilobytes

in theory it's possible to make them up to 4 megabytes but my javascript screws up when you get much bigger than 350 kilobytes

and nodes won't relay transactions that are bigger than 400 kb anyway, though they will accept them if they see them in a block

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Zepasta 17 Mar 2023

When i try to upload a file higher than 120 kb or something it gives me a pop up saying it has a limit. Are you sure it's 350 kilobytes?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @super_testnet OP 18 Mar 2023

It has a soft limit (120kb) and a hard limit (350kb), you can override the soft limit by clicking through the prompt, which tells you to click ok to ignore the warning. But you can't override the hard limit except by modifying the code.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @samsamskies 14 Mar 2023

:sad-pepe:

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @BITC0IN 14 Mar 2023

interesting. half of me wishes devs wouldn't enable this shit. what was your motivation for creating this tool?

3 sats \ 0 replies \ @super_testnet OP 14 Mar 2023

I had several motivations, one of them is here: #152035

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nym 14 Mar 2023

It worked, thanks!

https://ordinals.com/inscription/a99969e758975d5bb26b605e98b92d57b68ed639002731f4bdd3c6476aa9865di0

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @besiha4063 14 Mar 2023 freebie

What is the max file size? I’d like to make a 4mb-er. Is this something you can help me with?

20 sats \ 1 reply \ @Zepasta 14 Mar 2023

deleted by author

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @super_testnet OP 14 Mar 2023

it's a wallet that supports Casey Rodamor's ordinal protocol for doing NFTs on bitcoin

the one I've been using is here: ordinalswallet.com -- I cannot vouch for it because I haven't read their code, all I can say is I've been using it for two days so far and they haven't stolen my money yet (I also only have 1000 sats and a picture of a duck on there)