> We leave the conclusions to the reader. As someone who hasn't kept up with Bitcoin for the past few years, can someone share their conclusion?
+1 for an ELI5
Don't invest in hyped technologies that you don't understand.
Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person
11–20 of 235 posts
Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person
#12Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person
#13> We leave the conclusions to the reader. As someone who hasn't kept up with Bitcoin for the past few years, can someone share their conclusion?
I am not a crypto fan, but I believe this would constitute a 51% attack https://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/51-attack.asp
Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person
#14Ordinal is a fairly new feature so it isn't terribly surprising that it's not widely used yet. Somebody has to be the first user, just as Satoshi mined most of the early blocks. More concerning is that the Bitcoin blockchain is getting clogged with Ordinals, crowding out other transactions. Spending $29M to DoS Bitcoin is either a really large or really small amount depending on your perspective.
Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person
#15Background: https://www.coindesk.com/learn/brc-20-explained-how-tokens-o... > The total transaction fees spent by this entity to dominate the Inscriptions are estimated to be 1056 BTC as of May 25, 2023... We leave the conclusions to the reader. I don't really understand what conclusion we are supposed to draw. > However, we notice that by spending only 0.005% of the total Bitcoin supply on transaction fees, a single…
You're off by an order of magnitude. 1,056 BTC is currently worth approximately $29m.
Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person
#16> We leave the conclusions to the reader. As someone who hasn't kept up with Bitcoin for the past few years, can someone share their conclusion?
I am not a crypto fan, but I believe this would constitute a 51% attack https://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/51-attack.asp
It's not. A 51% attack involves mining, not transactions.
Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person
#17Fraud and misrepresentation in the sphere of cryptocurrency? Say it isn't so! > This vulnerability may partly be due to the discount for witness vBytes in SegWit, That's erroneous thinking resulting from a false and confused description that uses the word "discount". An attacker's objective is to deny access to capacity to other participants by outbidding them for available capacity. It doesn't matter what units the…
The absolute worst place to do fraud is on a traceable and a transparent blockchain.
Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person
#18Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person
#19Ordinal is a fairly new feature so it isn't terribly surprising that it's not widely used yet. Somebody has to be the first user, just as Satoshi mined most of the early blocks. More concerning is that the Bitcoin blockchain is getting clogged with Ordinals, crowding out other transactions. Spending $29M to DoS Bitcoin is either a really large or really small amount depending on your perspective.
As far as I can tell ordinals are just NFT's? Is that correct?
Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person
#20> We leave the conclusions to the reader. As someone who hasn't kept up with Bitcoin for the past few years, can someone share their conclusion?
I disagree with the following, but my understanding is Bitcoin purists believe that ordinals are moving Bitcoin away from Satoshis’s whitepaper introduction of Bitcoin as peer to peer electronic cash. In this mindset, meme coins and nfts are scams or at best unimportant entertainment commodities rather than a core innovation of blockchains. So the use of the Bitcoin chain’s limited block space to create these ordinals increases fees for peer to peer cash transactions and move Bitcoin away from Satishi’s vision.
Probably the reason for leaving the conclusions to the reader is conspiratorial. Since one single wallet is responsible for most ordinals, some people might believe it is a government actor trying to stop Bitcoin from becoming useful as peer to peer cash. Of course this is ridiculous as in fact the original premise is wrong as memecoin and nft entertainment products represent a greater threat to state power than peer to peer cash - as they represent popular sovereign property that a lot of people want.