My OnChain Pepe
117 posts
@MyOnChainPepe
$pepe #pepearmy 420 Fully Onchain Pepe you design at mint! https://t.co/YCdsd3YkCy @QuacksQQNFT fam
My On Chain Pepe’s dynamic svg design and html/javascript interface is inscribed on a Bitcoin ordinal, all possible configurations can be previewed, here is the content link: ordinals.com/content/ee9c6a… #pepe #btc #Ordinals #OnChain this Pepe is forever 💎
@AdrianDittmann @cb_doge Yeah, at least encode the jpeg on the blockchain!
i feel we need new terminology to distinguish “fully on-chain” versus “on chain” an “on-chain nft” to me is where the nft does not rely on a centralized server & should theoretically, ‘live’ as long the underlying blockchain exists … but with “on chain summer” & other uses of “on chain”, it’s no wonder the likes of elon is so uneducated when it comes to true on-chain collections but i suppose fully on-chain is an ambiguous qualification in itself … for example: chromie squiggle - the contract has the tokenHash & generator code but not the art nor metadata, so fully on-chain, or not? punks - the original contracts have the imageHash & 2021 contract has all images & attributes on-chain, so fully on-chain, or not? … and there’s myriad other combinations of on-chain v off-chain dynamics for example: lots of projects will point their ‘image’ to an off-chain image purely for marketplace & hex pfp support, but ‘animation_url’ & everything else will be fully on-chain e.g. Checks PFP and what about ipfs & arweave: depending on how they are configured, they may or may not be dependent on centralized servers … therefore “fully on-chain” isn’t always appropriate is it just “on-chain” versus “on chain”? i don’t think that’s a workable solution or do we try to force the term “on-chain”, hyphenated or not, to mean “fully or mostly on-chain, not needing centralized servers”?
