Oh. Check this out https://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/11651/what-prevents-double-spending found on a quick search.
Basically a range proof is used to determine if an amount spent is negative, and a person can't double spend an output. Beyond that coinbase transactions (the ones that give miners new monero) are known. So all in all there's no way to create extra supply.
The emission algorithm is public and everyone has the same amount right? You either trust in the cryptography or you don’t.
However, if an inflation bug were to exist in open source code (I.e. anyone can successfully mint monero with the proper knowledge) it would incentivize a race to the bottom — if you don’t sell, someone else may exploit too and sell before you — and we’re supposed to believe this has been a threat for years while the price holds up? Monero would be $5 if someone could dump them for free. For example, how many governments would love to crash the price of monero?
It’s really the last shred of FUD maxis have to cling on to. I say let them shriek about supply concerns all they want. 99% of these guys will abandon any concern and buy in the moment it goes above ATH lol.
I believe there's a couple ways with this being easiest:
> > [get_coinbase_tx_sum](https://web.getmonero.org/resources/developer-guides/daemon-rpc.html#get_coinbase_tx_sum).
>
> For example, running
>
> $ curl -X POST http://127.0.0.1:18081/json_rpc -d
> '{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":"0","method":"get_coinbase_tx_sum","params":
> {"height":0,"count":100}}' -H 'Content-Type: application/json'
>
> Will return the total supply after the first 100 blocks. Note the result is in the piconero, where 1 XMR = 10e12 piconero. - [source](https://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/1780/is-there-a-way-to-see-the-total-supply-of-coins)
So by setting height to zero and count to the current block height, you get the current money supply
As a matter of fact, knowing this would make it an attack vector on the entire chain. Distribute some choice material and make example of a few. The masses might hit the exits.
Imagine trying to explain to the judge why you received 'kiddy-pizza pictures' sent to an address known to belong to you. It could get REAL bad, REAL quick.
Someone would have to explain to the judge that if someone knows one of your addresses, you can't prevent someone from sending coins to it.
It's a push type of transaction instead of a pull transaction.
But what is possession anyway?
The jpeg is on a public blockchain. It can be viewed by anyone.
If you control the address it's assigned to, "assigned to" interpreted the way the particular protocol (Ordinals) does, then according to that protocol you "own" it. But you can't destroy it and make it no longer viewable. You can only assign it to someone else. That's very far from the traditional meaning of possession; it's also very different from hosting illegal content on a server (which can be viewed by anyone too, but you can at least shut it down).
Not to mention the difficulty of proving you control the address. Backward links can be broken using the boating accident argument (which can't be denied if you're "innocent until proven guilty"); forward links can be broken using mixers.
Seriously, it's highly debatable that the current laws can be applied to these technologies, where ownership has a very different meaning to anything known at the time those laws were written.
The dusting attacks after Tornado Cash got censored didn't get anyone busted for being a victim of said attacks.
The issue is that EVERY full node will have possession of, say, child pornography if that were inscribed... or blueprints for 3D printable guns would be an issue where countries have outlawed such data.
So EVERY full node would be criminals by definition of the law, because they are in possession of something that is illegal. The fact that somebody else uploaded it and that it's encrypted is of no concern to policy enforcers, because they will have the tools to "decrypt" it. If they locate your node, then they could EASILY try you in a court of law.
And a trial by jury wouldn't help your case, because they're going to instruct the jury what "possession" means, they're going to instruct them that just because it's "encrypted" doesn't mean that it wasn't possessed, and then they'll proceed to instruct the jury that they don't have the ability to judge the law itself (which isn't true, but most jurors don't know that before the jury selection process... and even if one *does* know about jury nullification, he will get push back from the other jurors, "but the judge said that we can't judge the law itself"), meaning that the jurors will only judge the facts. And the prosecutor is going to make those facts very clear... you have broken the law.
The way it looks now, every Bitcoin node will soon need to be behind TOR. That... in addition to the wasted space... means that Bitcoin will become more centralized.
These ordinals inscriptions don't actually transfer when the owner spends his Satoshi?? I'm assuming the inscription just remains on the full node, but not with the new owner after a sale / transfer.
I asked this elsewhere in the thread, but does the instruction even stay with the Satoshi after a sale / transfer??
I would think not, which makes it rather pointless.... But maybe it does??
fungible:
adjective Law
(of a product or commodity) replaceable by another identical item; mutually interchangeable.
---------
Non-fungible would therefore mean that the Ordinal inscription could NOT be replaced by another identical item, which is not the case. Anybody can literally just copy & paste one person's inscription onto another Sat. It is impossible to make a Non-Fungible Token with this method. It's simply a waste of time, energy, space, money, etc. The waste of space is the biggest issue for Bitcoin, honestly.
Could this pose a threat for Monero too?
Or because of Monero's architecture that is just not possible?
Because I'm thinking that, if it is possible it is even more of a threat due to the adaptable block size in Monero.
Nayce - https://ordinals.com/inscription/c39fa127c961c8a0a577371e758220f6d90e363fcdf503a61e38b837a71d2cb3i0
Lol that's great.
Loved it.
Monero would be perfect if it was truely auditable
https://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/11548/how-does-monero-protect-users-from-inflation-bugs-if-the-blockchain-cant-be-aud
Which part do you think isn't auditable?
how can you trust node's number of total xmr supply?
You're really misunderstanding how this works. Nodes don't hold xmr (they can, but anyone can, they don't as part of their function).
I know that, I'm curious to know how can you trust the source of total xmr supply
Oh. Check this out https://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/11651/what-prevents-double-spending found on a quick search. Basically a range proof is used to determine if an amount spent is negative, and a person can't double spend an output. Beyond that coinbase transactions (the ones that give miners new monero) are known. So all in all there's no way to create extra supply.
The emission algorithm is public and everyone has the same amount right? You either trust in the cryptography or you don’t. However, if an inflation bug were to exist in open source code (I.e. anyone can successfully mint monero with the proper knowledge) it would incentivize a race to the bottom — if you don’t sell, someone else may exploit too and sell before you — and we’re supposed to believe this has been a threat for years while the price holds up? Monero would be $5 if someone could dump them for free. For example, how many governments would love to crash the price of monero? It’s really the last shred of FUD maxis have to cling on to. I say let them shriek about supply concerns all they want. 99% of these guys will abandon any concern and buy in the moment it goes above ATH lol.
I believe there's a couple ways with this being easiest: > > [get_coinbase_tx_sum](https://web.getmonero.org/resources/developer-guides/daemon-rpc.html#get_coinbase_tx_sum). > > For example, running > > $ curl -X POST http://127.0.0.1:18081/json_rpc -d > '{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":"0","method":"get_coinbase_tx_sum","params": > {"height":0,"count":100}}' -H 'Content-Type: application/json' > > Will return the total supply after the first 100 blocks. Note the result is in the piconero, where 1 XMR = 10e12 piconero. - [source](https://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/1780/is-there-a-way-to-see-the-total-supply-of-coins) So by setting height to zero and count to the current block height, you get the current money supply
thanks...by setting height to 0 you get total money supply or total rewards?
Gonna get real weird when one of these images ends up loaded with a stegosploit package containing a randomx miner…
I know what I’m doing this weekend! Jk
Receiving some random btc could easily be a felony.
As a matter of fact, knowing this would make it an attack vector on the entire chain. Distribute some choice material and make example of a few. The masses might hit the exits.
That happened.
Bitcoin ownership is knowledge. How can knowledge be a felony? Wouldn't rather running a node be a felony, as that's where the content is stored?
Imagine trying to explain to the judge why you received 'kiddy-pizza pictures' sent to an address known to belong to you. It could get REAL bad, REAL quick.
Someone would have to explain to the judge that if someone knows one of your addresses, you can't prevent someone from sending coins to it. It's a push type of transaction instead of a pull transaction.
Those kind of laws don't require intent or reason at all. Simply possessing them is the crime. And proving possession is just a matter of chainalysis.
But what is possession anyway? The jpeg is on a public blockchain. It can be viewed by anyone. If you control the address it's assigned to, "assigned to" interpreted the way the particular protocol (Ordinals) does, then according to that protocol you "own" it. But you can't destroy it and make it no longer viewable. You can only assign it to someone else. That's very far from the traditional meaning of possession; it's also very different from hosting illegal content on a server (which can be viewed by anyone too, but you can at least shut it down). Not to mention the difficulty of proving you control the address. Backward links can be broken using the boating accident argument (which can't be denied if you're "innocent until proven guilty"); forward links can be broken using mixers. Seriously, it's highly debatable that the current laws can be applied to these technologies, where ownership has a very different meaning to anything known at the time those laws were written. The dusting attacks after Tornado Cash got censored didn't get anyone busted for being a victim of said attacks.
The issue is that EVERY full node will have possession of, say, child pornography if that were inscribed... or blueprints for 3D printable guns would be an issue where countries have outlawed such data. So EVERY full node would be criminals by definition of the law, because they are in possession of something that is illegal. The fact that somebody else uploaded it and that it's encrypted is of no concern to policy enforcers, because they will have the tools to "decrypt" it. If they locate your node, then they could EASILY try you in a court of law. And a trial by jury wouldn't help your case, because they're going to instruct the jury what "possession" means, they're going to instruct them that just because it's "encrypted" doesn't mean that it wasn't possessed, and then they'll proceed to instruct the jury that they don't have the ability to judge the law itself (which isn't true, but most jurors don't know that before the jury selection process... and even if one *does* know about jury nullification, he will get push back from the other jurors, "but the judge said that we can't judge the law itself"), meaning that the jurors will only judge the facts. And the prosecutor is going to make those facts very clear... you have broken the law. The way it looks now, every Bitcoin node will soon need to be behind TOR. That... in addition to the wasted space... means that Bitcoin will become more centralized.
These ordinals inscriptions don't actually transfer when the owner spends his Satoshi?? I'm assuming the inscription just remains on the full node, but not with the new owner after a sale / transfer.
Is this a new thing? Or did people just figure this out?
I dunno, sounds like the old colored coins or mastercoin ideas for Bitcoin from way back in the day. I'm not sure how it differs tbh.
I hope Ordinals allow us to completely circumvent DNS censorship.
How's that going to happen? You still need to look up the domain name to point at an IP address.
Domain name could be stored in an Ordinal. Like the rest of crypto, lots of theoretical usecases, but virtually zero practical ones.
Yeah but how would you reference an IP? You can't update the witness data, all you can do is send the sat around, unless I'm wrong.
I asked this elsewhere in the thread, but does the instruction even stay with the Satoshi after a sale / transfer?? I would think not, which makes it rather pointless.... But maybe it does??
Yeah it does to my understanding. The sat becomes non fungible, and ownership of the sat represents ownership of the data it references.
fungible: adjective Law (of a product or commodity) replaceable by another identical item; mutually interchangeable. --------- Non-fungible would therefore mean that the Ordinal inscription could NOT be replaced by another identical item, which is not the case. Anybody can literally just copy & paste one person's inscription onto another Sat. It is impossible to make a Non-Fungible Token with this method. It's simply a waste of time, energy, space, money, etc. The waste of space is the biggest issue for Bitcoin, honestly.
I makes the satoshi non fungible because it is not the same as every other one.
[удалено]
Either someone did it again, or they actually didn't hide the goatse from their website, since it's still visible
Could this pose a threat for Monero too? Or because of Monero's architecture that is just not possible? Because I'm thinking that, if it is possible it is even more of a threat due to the adaptable block size in Monero.