Bitcoin Ordinals/Inscriptions

for the purpose of instigating discussion.
How might the Stacks blockchain use this functionality?
Is it generally useful and desirable on bitcoin L1 or better to do these things on the Stacks chain?
And what API or Clarity contracts might be useful to help dev’s use this?


One discussion floating around twitter is if this can be used for arbitrary on-chain app state/data storage similar to IPFS. If so, it seems it would be for use cases that need guaranteed permanent storage at a higher cost.

PS. informational podcast (thanks @larry )

NFTs aren’t really my area of interest or expertise. An interesting takeaway from that podcast was that the way NFTs in most ecosystems work, they dont provide an obvious mechanism for a purchaser to make sure the artwork for their NFT actually stays available.

For example, storing an NFT on IPFS isn’t particularly useful if purchaser:

  1. doesn’t understand what that means → it’s stored on some other peoples’ computers and will disappear if they all delete it from their computers…and
  2. doesn’t have a way to pin the particular file.

The way Casey framed it, the NFT purchaser is the one with the biggest incentive to insuring continued availability of their own NFT, but most projects offer no mechanism for users to do that.

1 Like

Hi Brad, I was just on Bitcoin NFT working group call just now, various builders around Stacks are trying to work around adding Ordinal support.

I’m personally a big supporter of making ordinal functionality available asap, because this Ordinal NFT market might explode pretty soon, currently people can’t even sell, no wallets ,no marketplaces, all just OTC (p2p), once little more scalable and the big sales numbers come in, will drive user adoption.

And I hope Stacks is there as the Bitcoin programing layer to make that global user trading easy and simple, will then drive more people to be interested in BNS, and Defi.

Let’s get people first foot in the door through Ordinal NFT via Stacks.

So just spit balling an idea here, I don’t know if this is actually doable but I was wondering about using ordinals and Stacks to create a Reusable NFT/Ordinal based on what it would be used for.

For things like property, identity, and things that will stay the same for a very long time, it does make more sense to inscribe that to Bitcoin as we don’t want it change much or at all. This will probably apply to most of the use case of Ordinals.

But for niche things such as Supply chain management where it the item changes through a process or state, it might be interesting to have the Satoshi represent the product and point to a Stacks contract to keep track of the state of it. This is so that the information of the process can still be kept transparent and open for everyone to see while keeping the Bitcoin blockchain free of this and still be able to track who owns what.

Thus you are Reusing the same Ordinal to represent the item while still keeping track of that state of the item as it transforms from one to the other

Again might not be doable or dumb, just thought I give my 2 sats in. :slight_smile:

Hank is on it!..
Ordinal swap with STX

Arbitrary data, L2 protocols/chain-state, even Clarity and other code stored in bitcoin on-chain “ord space”. Possible? Why this could be good or bad idea?

apparently this could be similar to the “op_return wars” of 2014 which I’m guessing @muneeb and other bitcoin OG’s know about first hand:

Abstract: In this piece we explore why Dapps are typically built on Ethereum rather than Bitcoin, which takes us all the way back to March 2014. We examine a debate about whether and how a Dapp protocol called Counterparty should use Bitcoin’s blockchain. This was sometimes called “The OP_Return Wars”. We explain the history of OP_Return usage and sidechains in Bitcoin. We conclude by arguing, whether one likes it or not, that it was the culture in the Bitcoin development community in 2014 and the negative view of using Bitcoin transaction data for alternative use cases, which played a major role in pushing developers of these Dapps onto alternative systems like Ethereum, along with other factors… The most significant factor is culture. Some Bitcoiners and Bitcoin developers simply did not want this type of activity on the Bitcoin blockchain and they successfully discouraged it. This seems to have primarily occurred in around March 2014 and what happened in that period is the subject of this piece.