Quote from: pooya87 on April 22, 2023, 05:24:36 AM

Quote from: NotFuzzyWarm on April 21, 2023, 01:27:35 AM

Came across an archive with all of Satoshi's posts here in the Forum and one is from Jan 2010 in response to a question asked. The thread deals with what has now become known as ordinals...
Replies 10-12 fit in quite well...

Apparently Satoshi had never read page 35 of the Standards for efficient cryptography, SEC 1: Elliptic Curve Cryptography published on 2009 on Symmetric Encryption Schemes before writing this wrong reply Tongue

Quote from: satoshi on January 28, 2010, 01:01:48 AM

Unfortunately, ECDSA can only sign signatures, it can't encrypt messages

Post #15 is a better fit response to the Ordinals Attack (slightly modified below)

Quote from: satoshi on January 29, 2010, 12:22:13 AM

It could use a separate infrastructure to pass messages, maybe just put a hash of the message in the transaction to prove that the transaction is for the order described in the message.

I.E. Side Chain.

I.E. Blockstream's Liquid Network.

I'm very confused why they're forcing themselves to use the Bitcoin blockchain, with its inefficiencies, and inconveniences for NFTs and their BRC-20 tokens. Tokens which are also forced to be NOT truly fungible, NOT divisible, and NOT trustless because Bitcoin is very limited for what they want to build. UNLESS, Ordinals is being used as an attack vector.

The name Casey Rodarmor will always be remembered everytime Ordinals is being used as an attack vector. The unlucky guy to have discovered and introduce the Taproot feature.