Unrecognized even tags are unbound and assigned negative inscription numbers #2109
Conversation
|
what does "unbound" mean? |
|
wait no no - so unrecognized even tag means the inscription is not assigned to a sat?? |
|
We introduced the concept of unbound in commit casey@950740a because of Super_Testnet's zero-value transaction. Even tags have always been reserved for core protocol things and right now we ignore inscriptions that use them but at the same time we want to recognize as many inscriptions as possible so this is what we came up with. |
|
thanks, so unbound means "not assigned to a sat" and therefore not transferrable right? |
|
Yes, that is correct. We are doing this because an even tag might be used in the future to point to a specific sat in the reveal tx outputs so as to assign an inscription to a different than the default sat. If people are overloading the even tags with their own meaning this might bite us in the ass in the future. If you can think of a better way to do this let me know :) |
|
Ok that makes sense. However, currently a lot of people are deliberately trying to inscribe "cursed" with an OP_66 tag, and all these people will feel rugged if they don't own their inscription. I propose that since a large portion of the community has adopted the OP_66 cursed tag, that we recognize OP_66 (and just take no action, but this ensures the inscription gets assigned normally). I can submit a PR. |
|
@raphjaph i made a PR to this branch that would recognize also i understand that introducing a new OP number is not something to be taken lightly. that said, I do believe a large portion of users are excited about this and would agree this is a well-received thing |
I actually think this is a pretty strong reason not to add support for OP_66. Issues, draft PRs, and discussing future plans for the protocol are not guarantees that specific changes will be made. It is often the case that during the course of development, plans change, and something that once seemed like a good idea turns out to have unforeseen consequences, causing plans to change. So, users are of course free to make nonstandard inscriptions, such as OP_66 cursed inscriptions, in the hopes that |
i think the lesson is learned already (I personally feel very terrible for causing this trouble) but denying |
|
btw, are there links to discussion around the decision to make unrecognized even tags unbound? |
But you haven't presented any evidence that you have discovered technical consequences to implementing this. The only reason you are giving above is that people need to learn. So plans are not changing for any reason other than Casey wants people to learn a lesson by losing money, correct? |
|
I strongly support prioritizing the long-term success of the Ordinals protocol over speculators who have rushed into an evolving situation. We degens are well aware of the risks involved when being early apers. While I don't want to lose money, the potential loss will be even greater if Ordinals fails in the long run. The success of the Ordinals protocol is most important, and I believe simplicity is crucial for its longevity. It's easier to add complexity, but much harder to remove it. We are already experiencing significant complexity in trying to preserve the inscription numbers, with the indexer needing to adapt at different block heights. Every additional layer of complexity will further complicate matters. I now lean towards the belief that inscription numbers should be flexible to a certain extent, and we shouldn't expect them to be permanent, especially in these early stages of the Ordinals journey. 100 year vision! |
|
Well thats how we grow, by adapting to unfavourable circumstances, if we keep it simple like jokie said we never will be able to grow and be better, ofcourse we will face difficulties while striving to be better but they will be worth it in the end, growing out of this situation will only show the resilience of Ordinals, not make them weaker or frail in long term, in my opinion that is a bad way to take this approach. Also, the two options currently available are not supporting OP_66 and "teaching people a lesson" by making them lose millions, or just add some limited negative inscriptions that will only look cool and will add an additional layer of feature. If a lesson has to be taught, the ideal way is by warning people that in future if anything similar happens the bugged inscriptions will not be supported, and if degens/users still do it then you burn them. Not people who saw some cool new shit and wanted to try it when casey you were already so optimistic/welcoming about them. @casey Just my humble opinion! |
|
a 100-year outlook harmonious solution should aim to keep the community of users, developers, and degens aligned |
|
A 100-year outlook harmonious solution should have re-indexed all cursed inscriptions in their proper place, not hack it into new negative numbers for fear of upsetting a few people. We should be consistent. If we don't re-index positives, we shouldn't yoink cursed ones either by invalidating the op-code 66 EDIT: added clarity |
|
The Universe has place for imperfections and your 100 year outlook harmonous solution doesn’t? @spencerrichardhenry |
I've heard there are multiple groups w/ cursed inscribers that do not have this op66 tag issue. my guess is the impact is much smaller. Additionally -- 70k over a few days is nothing compared to the numbers of ordinals this codebase will have to support decades into the future. we already have 7m in a few months. |
Yes but what exactly is the problem in the codebase supporting these inscriptions decades in the future haha. The way i see it, codes have bugs- and by keeping the limited no of negative inscriptions that have already been inscribed we are just celebrating history and the beauty of imperfections that exist in every realm of life, ordinals being no exception. |
|
Negative inscriptions should remain imho. At first, it might have been OK to eliminate them in various methods - at this point, there’s clear demand for it and I think it present an interesting wrinkle to our space. Eliminating them now would harm many regular people and harm the reputation of the protocol by association. most interestingly to me, negative numbers allow for more interesting artistic opportunities, such as we’ve seen with people inscribing negative colors on negative numbers, or collections that may have brother/sister inscriptions on both positive and negative. We’ve only scratched the surface of how this could be used in the future and squashing it now will squash amazing future discoveries and experiments not yet made. We should be pushing the limits of what’s possible, not allowing only sanctioned experiments. |
|
I'm willing to support unrecognized even tags being transferable in arb by removing the current restriction without making such inscriptions unbound. This can be implemented relatively quickly. Future upgrades using even tags will still be possible based on activation height. Is anyone interested in this solution? |
|
I think before making any decisions, we should actually be looking at the hard work creators have put in with cursed ordinals. l made a collection based around the concept that my ordinals were cursed and belonged in the underworld. There are other artists who have launched on cursed ordinals, which should also highlight the work they've done.
|
|
Crazy !!!!! |
Well, this issue went poorly, as expected. For anyone interested in a solution to recognize the millions of dollars in transaction fees spent by users intending to create NFTs, not donations to a museum, I'm working on it here. I'm very open to outside discussion and collaboration, so I'll respond to community input instead of ignoring it 🙂 |
|
@raphjaph please reconsider... I have made many cursed inscriptions and I expected them to be NFTs... as others have said many times millions of dollars in fees wasted and not a single technical argument as to why... no discourse in good faith... it sounds like a fiat decision... not a decentralized decision... |
|
support, |
|
A ‘Bug’ should be a ‘Feature’ too, Nothing is born perfect |
|
why is "unbound" the default? |
There are already strong reasons....over 68,000 strong reasons, because that's how many cursed ordinals have been inscribed. |
|
Hey @casey and @raphjaph I found out about this debate from the bitcoin magazine article. No cursed ordinals in my wallet yet but I really like the idea and works. I think they should be fully supported so they can be traded like true ordinals then maybe I can buy some. It would feel like a real rug pull if you go ahead with the choice to not back your community. Look at all the friendly degens myself included that want you to let them have their cursed ordinals. Even the news is covering it now. Please do the right thing and show that you work for the community you helped to build. That is the way forward. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/the-debate-around-cursed-ordinal-inscriptions |
|
Still radio silence from the devs... crazy... did some digging looks like development quietly moved to https://github.com/raphjaph/ord/commits/cursed-inscriptions-the-beginning... not a dev so no idea what it mean... any improvement? |
We're tackling the cursed inscriptions step by step and have released initial support in 0.6.0. We will get to this issue soon. Your continued support is appreciated. |
@veryordinally super happy to continue supporting you and the other devs... glad you appreciate it... nothing much to get to though... are you aligned with the community on making our NFTs function as NFTs... or as @letsberational said... will you keep fighting the community? |
|
Hey @casey @raphjaph and @veryordinally another article was recently published about this nightmare. It says you plan on supporting these cursed inscriptions as true ordinals the same as everyone in the community wants! Why are you all purposely not saying that here then? Like @BatBushRacks said it should be easy and quick to state your intentions. Silence can be deafening. Just my view on things. https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-ordinals-upgrade-rectify-cursed-inscriptions-issue |
|
Greetings all, just read through everything. I think these should be handled the same as the other inscriptions, but at the same time everyone should remember open source is unpaid work. No one "works for the community" on this. |
Well they ask for and have received donations from the community... https://twitter.com/rodarmor/status/1662617512700420096... so in that way it is working for the community... the job is to make our NFTs function... an important job indeed... |
|
I read about this in the BM article. I feel they should be recognised but are inscription numberss really a good idea? I feel like a lot of drama has been brought up by the numbers while watching the Ordinals space the past few months. A lot of people say they should be dropped. Anyway thanks to the team for building all of this. |
No description provided.