BNS Names on L1 - feedback requested

BNS
#42

I feel like we’re getting off topic here. I never said we’re a reputation platform. There are multiple ways to showcase identity. Instagram and LinkedIn both represent identities — they are not competitors in a traditional sense. But let’s respect the topic above and chat about this elsewhere if you’d like.

I’m not making a determination on behalf of others. This is a user’s decision on what to do with their own identity. It’s arguably unethical for an app to prevent a user from doing what they want with their own asset simply for that app’s financial gain or to protect their network effects. Gamma is the dominant marketplace on L2, we are a tiny player on L1, so this arguably goes against my own interests, but I still believe users should be free to do what they wish to do — thousands are asking for it. I’m simply trying to be a spokesperson for many of our users who have asked for this.

3 Likes
#43

The elephant in the room is that the Ordinals exchanges that do the most volume, and that currently list .btc names will determine the “true” .btc names.

I know that at least Magic Eden, UniSat, and OrdinalsWallet support a non-BNS .btc names:

Magic Eden: BTCDomain | Magic Eden
UniSat: https://unisat.io/market/names?dt=btc
Ordinals Wallet: https://ordinalswallet.com/collection/btc-names

We can see the Ordinal marketplaces with the most volume, number of unique users, etc on Domo’s website: https://dune.com/domo/ordinals-marketplaces

The top Ordinal marketplaces are Magin Eden, UniSat, Ordinals Wallet, and Okx

Here are the Percentage Share of Transactions by Marketplace:

Screenshot 2023-07-20 at 9.26.27 AM

Here are the Transactions by Marketplace:

Screenshot 2023-07-20 at 9.29.14 AM

There’s little point in continuing this conversation until Magic Eden, UniSwap, and Ordinals Wallet support a new .btc name standard.

#44

Ragnar, this is a huge distraction. I don’t believe you are contributing to this thread in good faith. It feels like you simply want to jump from argument to argument to unilaterally block this from happening.

With all due respect, I’ve made my opinion clear. I’m going to leave it at that. I hope this proposal makes it through — it seems there is an overwhelming majority of supporters.

2 Likes
#45

Are you calling me unethical? You’re getting emotional, personal, and overly aggressive. It’s unprofessional and reflects poorly on Gamma.

We build an app. Users can choose to use it or not.

1 Like
#46

What’s a distraction?

Do you mean the argument that Gamma is an identity and reputation app. If you think that’s off-topic, you shouldn’t have brought it up.

If by distraction you mean marketplace adoption, I’m surprised to hear you say that, since ultimately, it will be the large L1 marketplaces that will decide what is and what is not L1 .btc. Especially the marketplaces that currently have .btc names, which are Magic Eden, UniSat, and Ordinals Wallet.

1 Like
#47

What if we simplify things a bunch? :wink:

Simplification:

L1 → SNS Inscription → resolves BTC address
L2 → BNS Registration → resolves STX address (+ BTC address if not linked to L1 inscription)

  • Link L2 to L1 made by inscription id, which only relays the BTC resolution to L1
  • Transfer of L1 names independent from L2
  • Registration/Inscription also independent
  • UX tools to facilitate linking, combined transfers and porting L1 <-> L2
    (porting means the process of creating the inscription/registration on the other side, like inscribing an L2 name to L1 if still available, or registering an L1 name on L2 if available, and linking them to L1)

Wouldn’t this be the best user experience and less complicated to implement on BNS? Or can someone point me to what I am missing, please… :call_me_hand:

1 Like
#48

Is there any cost analysis of this match of BNS names to ordinals?
From the perspective of massification of the use the BNS names, the lower cost we have, it will help the massification.
Example: A fintech company wants to change the way their customer autheticate to their apps, and want to use the BNS Identity for each user. Nowadays, cost them 0.5-2,5 STX per user in the BNS. They are small, they have 20000 customers.
I wonder if it is so important to increase unit costs just for being exchangable in L1.
I would prefer to maintain the BNS names as metadata, not as digital images or files. Legally, accessing a digital file cannot be defended as you own it, from the perspective of the common law. The only way, is that you have exclusive right to access to the digital file. I would like to reccomend to have a look about digital files at the Digital Assets: Final report presented to Parlaiment pursuant to section 3(2) of the Law Commissions Act 1965. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 27 June 2023, United Kingdom.

1 Like
#49

Hey, great questions.

Unlike other Ordinals name systems, the authenticity of BNS L1 names can use the Stacks-based smart contract to find the source of truth for “valid” L1 names. When a user bridges their BNS name to L1, they’re providing the Inscription ID that they used. So, any person or dev can query the Stacks contract to see if a particular inscription is valid.

I’m also working on an API for devs to easily fetch this info.

Does that make sense? Happy to share more if needed!

2 Likes
#50

Hey all, just an update here - I’ve been steadily making progress on the design I’ve described in the first post. I respect Ragnar’s opinions, but I think it’s most important for us to ensure that owning a name on L1 means you can always choose to bridge back to L2 and own the same name.

This project involves a bunch of different areas of development - the smart contracts, the front-end work, and API stuff, so there is still much to be done. I’ll keep providing more updates here!

3 Likes
#51

any of them will list anything what will give them % fee, don’t see problem there, as we know at ME already listed 2 .btc ordinals projects, so there is a chance they list 3rd too.

marketplace list collections, they are not court of justice who decide if it is legal L1 or not, buyers will decide this with their money they pay for what they believe is best one

1 Like
#52

thank you for your hard work! :orange_heart: as @nickgamma told many people looking forward to move to L1 their names! can’t wait when i can do it finally! so so so long time awaiting decision finally become reality

1 Like
#53

will it be there data when name was registered at stacks? it could help show ownership with “first is first” rules

1 Like
#54

Copying over some Twitter comments I have per the .BTC Ordinals Trust Machine Twitter Space.

This was a fantastic discussion by heynky, stackatron, larrysalibra, and RagnarLif on Stacks
BNS Names and #Bitcoin#Inscriptions.

I encourage everyone to listen and weigh-in. I wanted to provide my thoughts below, if desired.

First, before I share my POV, I wanted to re-iterate, awesome conversation :clap:. This is how great solutions, monuments are built. It takes collective viewpoints and refining to get there.

Second, before getting to a viewpoint, these are thoughts that go through my mind before developing a decision.

  1. What do we need? Why do we need this? How does this impact other people?

  2. I certainly understand revenue aka dollars aka liquidity is the lifeblood for any organization. You need gas in the tank to thrive. Personally, for me, I have learned that it cannot be a primary driving factor if you want to build great things. Sow seeds and the bountiful harvest will come.

  3. Build for the future, not for the day. Dream into the future where this could go and how it could empower people. IMO, preserving decentralization with a naming convention should always be top of mind - from the creation, assignment, and technical flow of usage to every application.

Furthermore, Utility is paramount for a naming conventions. I don’t treat my personal IRL name as an artifact. It is “my mark”, it is an identity for access to places/application or on the receiving end messages/permissioning, it is the association of completed past works by me, and lastly it is hopefully the words/letters that will mean something to others in my community, family, and friends.

Stacks BNS to me serves a unique purpose. It is a layer 2 for expanded decentralized programming. Layer 1 one in this context is for decentralized immutability. (Ps. Centralized indexers devalue the decentralized immutability value proposition - if used).

Therefore, when it comes to Naming Conventions, given the aforementioned points.

Programming comes first before immutability in my eyes.

If I cant do anything, or if I’m handicap in doing things: what value does immutable text give me? Nothing.

The name needs “the fruit of my works”. It needs my personal energy behind.

We have to think bigger than just the use cases of today. Bigger, than speculation.

With that, I lean towards supporting the proposal shared by Ragnar.

I don’t need to have the unique text of the first thing inscribed on #BTC. I need the programming functionality of my Stacks BNS Name.

Having the unique value of inscribing my unique BNS to ordinals with some type of unique generated stamp/code to link is plenty good for me to then add the secondary value of immutability. Or, I think someone also mentioned like adding an “S” as with sBTC, that’d be cool too.

At the end of day to me, it’s however we can best serve People with freedom and functionality at scale.

It would be super-cool if exchanges like Magic Eden, Ordinals Wallet, and Unisat were also on board with this. Our ecosystem at large, as in #crypto people #bitcoiners, etc. would grow to serve masses with enhanced functionality that would empower individuals.

Disclaimer: I am no where near the most tech-savvy on these topics. These are just my thoughts to the best of my knowledge. As always, this is all software, so we’re constantly innovating on all fronts. But, I do think we can look to the past to see where efforts were exerted so we’re not running in circles.

1 Like
#55

Ordinals is a place any commoner can create tokens and namespaces.

Just need 1-2usd miner fee

It is beyond 2016 Ethereum.

If you guys are arrogant about ordinals, you‘ll regret

bns must be bridge ordinals. Otherwise it is difficult to succeed

@RagnarLifthrasir don’t give @hank too much resistance thanks

I think bns is life or death right now. If stacks guys can’t reach consensus will die

#56

@hank gave a really cool demo of his work on bridging L2 names to L1 yesterday.

Video is here:

A transcript of the meeting is here:

1 Like
#57

Hey all! The update here is:

  • Completed is:
    • Web app flows in Dots to inscribe a BNS name (bridge from L2 to L1) as well as to bridge back to L2
    • All contract work
    • Pages on Dots to search for a name, view inscription (and other) metadata, and see a list of all inscribed names
    • API endpoints to return a list of all inscribed names, verify an inscription, lookup the inscription for a name, and more
  • The only remaining work item is integrating with Gamma’s inscription service to provide an easy flow for creating your inscription. You absolutely don’t have to use this, it’s just to make it easy, especially for HTML inscriptions (which are not well supported with most inscription services)
  • I’m also working with Gamma to get a proper collection page for BNS names on L1. I feel that this a required step before launching, otherwise there isn’t an easy way to interact or use a marketplace with BNS names on L1
4 Likes
#58

Should I talk with some other servises who can manage it? @hank where is it possible to find documentations for updates? Thanks!

#59

Update needed !