Casey Rodarmor created Ordinals to let users transfer individual Satoshis via the Taproot upgrade. This also allows NFT data storage using Taproot script-path spend scripts.
I’m still trying to wrap my head around it. Just read that blog about it. Anyone here who can break it down for us newbies? Haha.
It’s not about OP_RETURN but rather using conditional branches with OP_PUSH. The limits on witness data are relaxed, but there's still a 4 million weight unit limit overall.
Basically, you can pack a lot into that 1MB, but get ready to pay higher fees.
I find this whole thing pretty interesting, but a couple of concerns pop up for me.
First, the blockchain bloat is real since we’re now limited by blocksize instead of OP_RETURN.
Second, there’s a serious privacy and fungibility issue here. That’s my main worry.
Totally agree with you. Honestly, I think we should keep the ‘fun stuff’ off-chain, like RGB is doing.
I’ll do some more reading and come back with my thoughts.
Look, if this turns into a spam chain, it’ll be bad for Bitcoin.
NFTs are a total distraction. We should be focused on Bitcoin as money, not some data utility chain. Satoshi was against this kind of stuff!
Feels like the author is trying too hard to revive a debate that’s over.
Why spend so much time on the ‘controversy’? Just explain the proposal already! It’s like he’s trying to pull data from thin air.
I get your point, but it’s confusing. What was the point of the OP_RETURN debates if Taproot just opens the door for arbitrary data again?
And what about the potential for misuse? This could bloat the blockchain.
1. Omni layer and colored coins (aka NFTs) use OP_RETURN.
2. OP_RETURN allows for only one transaction.
3. Block explorers can decode OP_RETURN outputs, making them easier to access.
Using OP_RETURN in TapScript can help. Scripts can stay committed to addresses but won’t bloat the chain.
Commitments could be tied to public keys and not show up on the main network.
I’ve been reading about Ordinals, and Peter Todd pointed out that this has been possible for ages.
This isn’t really about Taproot. It’s all been doable before, even with P2SH.
Right, but P2SH has standardness rules. You can't just drop random data in your script.
For standard transactions, you’d need to use OP_RETURN or public keys. SegWit allows more data in a witness.
I saw someone made a giant NFT yesterday, like 3.9MB with zero fee. Can’t believe the Luxor pool would mint an NFT instead of taking a fee.
The reactions to it aren’t very positive.
Imagine if we got rid of blocksize limits. Someone might try to upload the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy!
It's a wild stunt but shows how important transaction fees are.
Yeah, I heard about people trying to store huge amounts of data on BSV.
People don’t mind paying for small transactions, but big ones? That’s a different story.
This is disastrous for Bitcoin. We’re starting to look like those other coins by allowing NFTs and data on chain.
Bitcoin was meant to be just money. This could really hurt node runners.
Developers didn’t plan for this when they created Taproot. NFTs weren’t part of the picture.
They just wanted a framework for smart contracts, and it hasn’t really taken off.
The trick is to design blockchains where transactions can only include a limited amount of non-standard data.
That keeps things cleaner and more efficient.
This whole blockchain bloat issue is just a rehash of the OP_RETURN discussions from years ago.
Those early projects had their impact, even if you don’t like them.
I don’t see what the big deal is. Blocks carry info, whether it’s financial or random.
Why impose morality on how the protocol is used? Isn’t it a freedom protocol?
We have spam attacks and now spam attacks with incentives.
If someone can profit from pushing junk onto the chain, it’s gonna hurt regular users trying to send their Bitcoin.