Quote from: nutildah on March 07, 2024, 12:08:20 AM

Hope your side is winning, for the sake of your own mental wellness.

Oh my mental wellness, I'm so worried now Grin

Quote from: Flavatron on March 07, 2024, 02:13:18 PM

The aspect of Ordinals I find most contentious is the application of Ordinal theory. The concept that individual satoshis have a unique identifier based on their issuance order on the network (i.e., the first coinbase transaction being 0-50 billion sats) is intriguing to me.

That is not entirely correct.
For starters Ordinals is not part of the Bitcoin protocol. So it is not doing anything to those statoshis despite what the advertisement says.
Secondly because blockchain is an ordered database (it is a chain) with a timestamp, those satoshis already had a unique identifier attached to them with that timestamp and the block height of the block they're included in.

Quote from: Flavatron on March 07, 2024, 02:13:18 PM

However, my main issue lies in the method used by Ordinals to store data. This method involves making the data appear like it is valid signature data and exploits a feature intended for multiple parties. As it stands, using this to store arbitrary data is similar to having an unlimited op_return—except for the overall blocksize/weight limit.

That is why I categorize Ordinals as an attack; it is exploiting the protocol. By the way OP_RETURN was never limited at the protocol level, you can have a perfectly valid transaction with an output that is as big as it can be (to fill an entire block). It was and still is the standard rules that is preventing OP_RETURN from being "exploited" to include arbitrary size data in the blockchain. Something that was lacking in the SegWit change and got exploited by this attack.

Quote from: Flavatron on March 07, 2024, 02:13:18 PM

Moving to a layer 2 solution could represent a step in the right direction, in my opinion.

There is a flaw in this logic. Bitcoin should not and is not supposed to do everything and solve every problem. Read what the creator of Bitcoin says about this. If you want to create a token, use a token creation platform. They are designed to do exactly that in the right way not in a weak off the main chain thing that can work however the owners and controllers of it want.

Quote from: OgNasty on March 09, 2024, 06:32:55 PM

Ordinals and the Lightning Network should be viewed as the same thing. Supporting one and not the other is hypocritical. I'm not saying they aren't both garbage, I'm just saying it has a fundamental importance that they be treated the same.

They are not even close.

In LN with all its shortcomings, you are sending actual bitcoins to your channel on-chain and then use that exact bitcoin in another layer to make any number of transactions you want with others who have done the same and at some point if you wished to, you can settle the final balance on chain again. It all depends 100% on what is happening inside Bitcoin and every single script in that process is part of the Bitcoin protocol, validated and enforced by the decentralized network of nodes and the security of this second layer is ensured by security of Bitcoin.
LN is also an actual network where you can run a node (as a peer) and enforce the rules of this network. In other words you know what the protocol is and you are enforcing its rules which can not change arbitrarily by some centralized entity.

That's not even close to what happens in the Ordinals Attack. In Ordinals you are just injecting an arbitrary data into the chain, and that is arbitrary data, not a script, not a token. Then there is a centralized database somewhere else where you can trade something they associate with this arbitrary data in a protocol they've defined, control and can change if they wanted to.
Ordinals is not a network, there is no node for you to run. You are not a peer in this system, you are just a user of this centralized database. It is not even linked to Bitcoin the way it may look like. In other words if Bitcoin ceased to exist right now, LN would cease to exist too but Ordinals may not!

If you want to compare Ordinals with anything, you can compare it with Tether.
You inject an arbitrary data into bitcoin blockchain using OP_RETURN. There is this other centralized protocol that is only enforced and controlled by the company (iFinex?) and can change if they wished, your Tethers can also be seized by that company at any time because it is centralized. There is also no node for you to run as a peer, you are just a user in that network.