but they *could* have been introduced in a hard fork manner with a new field

or format or whatever

doesn't say much, literally anything can be added with a hard fork

for longevity of the project we should aim to reduce the frequency and constrain the scope of hard fork changes

Not really, adding something through a hard fork requires dev consensus and goes through a lot of scrutiny. Soft forks, on the other hand...

UkoeHB: I think the opposite point can be made as well, for the longevity of the project we must be prepared to hard fork every time there's substantial improvements in cryptography or other privacy-related tech that should be added to the Monero protocol lest we find ourselves obsolete and outcompeted.

the endgame of that approach is an unconstrained, overburdened mess (just look at the c++ standard for example)

I get what you're saying but:

1. C++ has massive longevity, so if anything my point is only reinforced re: longevity

2. Nothing precludes a potential future hard fork to preserve everyone's UTXOs and pruning the old blocks to not worry about the old code baggage anymore, as far as I understand.

Ordinals does not use OP_RET and is therefore steganography, even if it's obvious, IMO Rucknium

riddle me this.... once monero uses "full-membership proof" , the puddle formation caused by free-range tx_extra is null, right?

pruning old blocks to remove the code that verifies them? I thought the point of a blockchain was to verify history and integrity of transactions, I don't see how you could ever realistically just chop off old blocks to dump old code. I mean technically, sure, but no

Plus with XMR you don't really know which enotes are unspent, so I don't think you can just preserve "UTXOs"

what are you replying to?

gingeropolous[m]: no

It's like climbing a smooth surface. Eve want to find purchase, and the more cracks you fill, the less options she has to find her way up.

So if you fill up one set of cracks really well with smooth finish, she can still use another set of cracks.

Incoming proposal for NFT's on monero

(From -dev)

Hi I am dgoon from Anon Shop. I have recently seen people saying, "NFTs are not possible on Monero". I want to be clear that I think NFTs are stupid, and I love monero. I am also a big fan of technicals. So I thought for a bit and I think I have a ugly but doable way to do NFTs. I have just two requirements for a NFT. 1. Embed image in the blockchain or a hash. 2. Transfer ownership of that image of a NFT around. Under those two

rules I thought of this way of accomplishing that goal. You could make a NFT, as I defined them, by creating a transaction. In that transaction you embed the viewkey in tx extra along with the image and you would need to also decide rules for picking which utxo to track. Now that everyone can see your utxo set you need to be able to prove that you sent that specific utxo, and you should be able to use some proofs from around page

79 of zero to Monero, such as OutProofV2 and InProofV2. My main idea is that people can opt int to reveal their utxos and the tracking of a specific utxo should be possible if people can opt into that by embedding the necessary proofs in tx_extra or some offchain site. This is an absurd way of doing things. I was just wondering if people thought it was possible. Its stupid but possible is my current opinion on Monero NFTs, which

in my opinion is not the same thing as them being impossible. Feel free to ignore this post, since there are obviously better things to spend your time on, I just wanted to put the idea out there and get feedback from a more technical crowd. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

I searched this chat for NFT and I can't find it discussed before. So please feel free to point me in the right direction if the convo has already be had.

Most people seem to think they are not possible. reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/uniq15…think_monero_network_based_nfts_are but I have not seen a technical explantion plus NFT defintion that shows they arent.

We had this entire chat room bridged to tx_extra

kayabanerve could give a good answer. It's probably possible with a protocol similar to the one you've described IMHO.

waste of time chasing the NFT fad, that's already losing its popularity everywhere else

aside from the fact it's stupid, from a privacy perspective

Rucknium[m]: Thanks, I was just looking for a , "This seem possible". I don't really want to dive to far into this since its just about NFTs.

DGoon: You're right but please don't

I'll personally haunt you for the rest of days

And there's a PR open that'll practically prevent anything that isn't just a reference (hashes)

It's also not an in proof/out proof yet a DLEq/key image proof

... I now realize I could've just said it's not actually an in/out proof and just called it there

You have my word that I won't build anything NFT related 🫡. I will stop asking questions about this before my curiosity leads to others getting too many ideas. Thanks a lot!