bitoshi blockamoto 🧱 BITMAP 🟧

And... let the Signal commence! signal.bitmap.land From this day forth, you may cast your Signal to vote for a District to become the Seat of your Hood. A Hood is 2016 Districts. There can only be one Seat. Hood Seats are recounted at the end of every. A Period is 2016 Blocks. If a Seat has the majority, they gain points for each District in the Hood minus any Veto's. If a Seat has a plurality, they gain points equal to the amount of Signals they received. Your Signal votes remain valid until the Halving. At the Halving are the Elections. Here, we determine an Elect (address) and a Capital (District) for each Sector. A Sector is 210,000 Districts. The Elect is determined by checking which address has the most points from Seat wins within the Sector. The Capital is determined by checking which of the Elects Seats has the highest Signal. The Elect and Capital remain until the next Election. These are the basic rules of the game. You cast your signal with: {"signal": {"hood": "[signal]"}} Replace [signal] with the Bitmap District inside the Hood you'd like to signal for. You nominate yourself by Signalling for the same District as the District that is Signalling. Signals are only counted for nominated Districts. You can also replace [signal] with veto or defer. A veto is a vote against all options. Defer allows the Parcels of your District to vote for what the District Signal is. You can read more here: ordinals.com/inscription/84…

@DGMD22 How to bring another inscription into my inscription: /content/[inscription-id] Can you give me the equivalent method for ETH ?

meh, this argument is starting to get lame tbh Ordinals are cool. Art on bitcoin is cool. But you can have fully on-chain art on Ethereum, and much of it is now. Platforms who printed tons of off-chain art in the mania 2021-era shutting down is not an argument that all art needs to move to bitcoin. There is no argument anymore that Eth as a chain is just going to cease to exist... If another 5 years pass and all bitcoin remains used as is 'digital gold', the argument becomes easier that bitcoin is the one at risk to not have longevity. I hold bitcoin, I love bitcoin. But the Bitcoin-maxi era for blockchain technology makes no sense anymore. There is a huge market demand for DeFi, RWA, AI, Privacy, Consumer App solutions and bitcoin has yet to figure out the L1/L2 solutions to take any market share in these areas. So therefore... we need more than bitcoin.

@DGMD22 It's a million times easier to inscribe a HTML with recursion than to create an on-chain ETH smart contract. So we can create entire operating systems, FPS games (with online multiplayer), on-chain on Bitcoin. ETH is like... Cool, we got another image on-chain. At best, voxels.

It's hardcoded in the Ord protocol. If you subscribe to the theory that counting numbers goes up, and indexing starts at 0, then you use Ord protocol. If somebody else decides we count down and numbers start at 1, let them have it. It will fail, but let them try just to show you why it's silly to think there's any other way.

@blockamoto @ord_io @foundation Doesnt matter if its the best or not. Thats the part many people look over. Its not hardcoded enforced. Like a smart contract for example.

BREAKING: Ethereum NFT platform @foundation just announced that it is shutting down and that all of the art will be rugged in one year This is why it's important to store art fully on-chain with protocols like Ordinals

You own sats that can be tracked through inputs back to coinbase and indexed based on position. You own the sats. It doesn't throw it off balance, it creates the balance. Inscriptions can only be traded this way. If ordinals didn't work, it wouldn't be possible. The debate isn't whether it's a balanced system, it's whether it's the best possible system, and so far it has proven to be. Otherwise another theory would take its place, and if it's better, it should. But I don't see a better method than standard "counting".

@blockamoto @ord_io @foundation Well the numbering system isnt really the big deal, its the attaching ownership to those various possible numbering systems that throws it off balance.

@0xzxch @ord_io @foundation Of course it matters what's best. The best one is the correct one.

@blockamoto @ord_io @foundation Doesnt matter whats best. Matters that there can be more than 1 correct claim.

@0xzxch @ord_io @foundation Just like base 10 is the best possible solution for human counting, but base 2 is best for computing. We could also use base6, sure, but why would we? Maybe to solve a DIFFERENT problem, in which case it's not in opposition.

@0xzxch @ord_io @foundation Case in point... Ethereum exists. Bitcoin still exists. The difference here is that different solutions have different benefits. In the Ord scenario, it's okay for alternatives to exist, but the key factor is Ordinals is the best possible solution so it would be pointless.

@0xzxch @ord_io @foundation What would be the value of creating a LIFO index? And there's not more than one way because of a little thing called consensus. The same reason Bitcoin can exist in the first place.

@blockamoto @ord_io @foundation Sure, I agree its the best option as well to be fair. But it's not the only hard-coded option. And thats not up for opinion of best or worst. If theres more than one way to prove ownership of a specific sat, then its not THE way.

Lifo and Hifo don't really work. Lifo reverses the flow for no real reason. Hifo doesn't apply because all sas equal 1. So you're left in FIFO. And indexing from 0 isn't really an option if you're working with Bitcoin and computing logic. How is the first blockheight of Bitcoin? Indexing from 0 is standard in computing. The general rule is, counting is from 1, indexing ordinally is from 0. Ordinals is the best option, and it's the option anybody who thinks it through will come to. Nobody would choose HIFO or LIFO.

@blockamoto @ord_io @foundation Theres many ways to start counting. Starting from 1 and starting from 0 is already one way too many to bulletproof this concept. Then you must consider which sats deserve which number in what order. HIFO, FIFO, LIFO? Etc etc.

Not true. Counting always works the same. You start with 1, then 2 comes after, and so on. In computing, when indexing, you -1 to index from zero. There's literally no other way to do it. Counting is the same across cultures across the world across time since the birth of written language. It's intrinsic, not some made up ruleset.

@blockamoto @ord_io @foundation Sat tracking is not in Bitcoin therefore endless protocols with endless rules can be created to claim that they own sats using many different rules and technically no one protocol would be correct or wrong. Its a core issue imo.

@0xzxch @ord_io @foundation Explain?

@blockamoto @ord_io @foundation U explained the problem. Good enough for me.

@stephanlivera Let's play chicken with Satoshi. 🙃

I'm against the "Burn the old coins" idea anyway, but a lot of people are missing the nuance in BIP361. It's not a full confiscation of every pre-quantum coin. The actual BIP361 proposal is: disable ECDSA/Schnorr spends after a ~5-year migration window, in favor of letting people use a ZKP rescue if they still have their BIP-39 seed words on a BIP32 wallet. But here's the fly in the ointment: What about the 'Patoshi' coins and other pre-BIP32 coins? We're talking ~1.7M BTC in early P2PK outputs with exposed pubkeys. No seed phrase = no ZKP rescue. Those coins either get moved manually by their owners before the sunset, or they get frozen forever under the new rules. Some have floated pre-Q-day commitments or other workarounds, but that just raises the obvious question: If they're gonna have to do a pre-Q-day commitment anyway, why not just push the responsibility on the holders of these old coins to shift to a quantum-safe output (BIP-360 P2MR or whatever)? Why force a consensus rule change that effectively confiscates a large chunk of that 1.7M BTC for anyone who doesn't do the pre-Q-day commitment, or does not upgrade in time? For this reason I'm still firmly in the "introduce a quantum-safe output type, let people migrate voluntarily, and let the chips fall where they may" camp. Bitcoin's strength has always been opt-in upgrades and not changing the rules on people. Confiscating even a portion of old coins is the wrong precedent to set. No to BIP361.

You'd use Ordinals, but if you're gonna be pedantic about it and play the "without Ordinals" game, it's pretty simple. Take inscription ID. Remove the "i0" or "i#" from it to get transaction ID. Inscription is in the witness data. If you want to track the Sat to see who owns it, you need to start counting sats from 0. This is not built into Bitcoin so unless you wanna create your own sat index, you'd just run or use an Ord node. People claim individual Sats don't exist because Bitcoin doesn't count or index them is like claiming individual bananas don't exist because they don't count themselves. You can count the bananas yourself, but it's the cashier that keeps track. Ord is the cashier in this analogy. Anybody can rebuilt Ord based on the same logic, and people have done. You index the sats at coinbase to get the initial index, then track the outputs and index those to get the movement. Luckily we don't have to, just as we don't have to recreate Bitcoin to use it.

@blockamoto @ord_io @foundation If I install the bitcoin blockchain and try to find an inscription via the command line, how do I find it?

@0xzxch @ord_io @foundation What do you mean? It's a UTXO Blockchain. You can see which UTXO's are in which address. Go on Ordinals.com now and click any inscription.

@blockamoto @ord_io @foundation Not how it works.

@hlopez_ @visionario_btc You need a hard fork.

@visionario_btc You are missing the point. People hold belief in Bitcoin that it is impossible for someone else to take coins without keys. You are claiming it is possible, which goes against Bitcoin dogma. Thats it.

@visionario_btc So you think Bitcoin developers are uneducated on Bitcoin and submitted an impossible proposal?

@Khunpaen01 @ord_io @foundation True. Often overlooked by Ordinals people is that you literally can have on-chain ETH NFT's, it's just a choice. The problem is, it's not the default on ETH and most users don't know the difference. On Ordinals, it is the default.

@ord_io @foundation u mean like this one?

@0xzxch @ord_io @foundation So does Ordinals in Bitcoin ...

@ord_io @foundation Atleast Ethereum people have proof of ownership on a blockchain.

@YungGucciT It would just add to the legend.

there’s this false premise in bitcoin that if satoshi’s coins were to move, then it’s all over for bitcoin that’s the same vibe as saying if jpegs make it onchain, then its over for bitcoin you people need to think more better

I wish they'd hurry up and quantum hack Satoshi's coins already, the tension is killing me.