Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <157676573-26d876ec3baac7f177731a4fa956fb25@pmq3v.m5r2.onet>
References: <157676573-26d876ec3baac7f177731a4fa956fb25@pmq3v.m5r2.onet>
From: Casey Rodarmor <casey@rodarmor.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 13:02:05 -0800
Message-ID: <CANLPe+ND4u76QxL4c4wy-=t-B4sCeB1G-_X1QBGa8aUCgy=kGg@mail.gmail.com>
To: vjudeu@gazeta.pl, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000d040405d8c9e5d6"
Cc: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Draft-BIP: Ordinal Numbers
Precedence: list

--0000000000000d040405d8c9e5d6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

> When we talk about future improvements, there could be even bigger
problem with ordinal numbers: what if/when we introduce some Monero-like
system and hide coin amounts? (for example by using zero satoshi, because
we have to use something that will be backward-compatible). Zero is quite
interesting amount, because it means "skip amount checking for old
clients". That can be used in many ways to introduce many protocols (and
also to add fractional satoshis on-chain, because 0.4 satoshis could be
represented as zero), so if that amounts will be simply ignored, then I
wonder how it would be possible to connect some future protocol based on
that with ordinal numbers.

Ordinal numbers are inherently public, so it seems reasonable that they
don't work with transactions that are private or have obfuscated values.

--0000000000000d040405d8c9e5d6
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><head></head><body><div><div><div>&gt; When we talk about future impr=
ovements, there could be even bigger problem with ordinal numbers: what if/=
when we introduce some Monero-like system and hide coin amounts? (for examp=
le by using zero satoshi, because we have to use something that will be bac=
kward-compatible). Zero is quite interesting amount, because it means &quot=
;skip amount checking for old clients&quot;. That can be used in many ways =
to introduce many protocols (and also to add fractional satoshis on-chain, =
because 0.4 satoshis could be represented as zero), so if that amounts will=
 be simply ignored, then I wonder how it would be possible to connect some =
future protocol based on that with ordinal numbers.<br></div><div><br></div=
><div>Ordinal numbers are inherently public, so it seems reasonable that th=
ey don&#39;t work with transactions that are private or have obfuscated val=
ues.<br></div></div><div></div></div></body></html>

--0000000000000d040405d8c9e5d6--