Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

block21m.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 235 posts

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#41

Post by refulgentis »

RustyRussell wrote: post #30
dingledork69 wrote: post #4

> 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?

Someone is creating tokens with the hope of selling them onwards. Most of them are created by a single entity, who spent about $30M in fees to do so, so presumably they expect people to buy them, and thus profit. The only reason most Bitcoin users care is that they pushed up fees for everyone else (there is limited block space, so miners take the highest bids). Such few pressure is expected to be the norm eventually,…

Is this accurate? Theres some sort of side-storage mechanism in Bitcoin that you can essentially pay for, but its little trafficked. But its used for NFTs. And for whatever reason this entity bought a ton of "NFT UPCs", which has the side effect of driving up transaction costs because they're spammy transcitions on limited bandwidth.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#42

Post by zmgsabst »

simple-thoughts wrote: post #20
dingledork69 wrote: post #4

> 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 ordinal…

Those are the same people who stopped BTC from having smart contracts via a full featured VM, moving it away from Satoshi’s vision — right?

BTC was supposed to be liquid as a market for compute by posing and solving challenges to give it an intrinsic value — and the people who gimped it for “Digital (Fools) Gold” are now complaining about scammers misusing the technology?

Well, at least I get to start my day with a laugh.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#43

Post by mvdtnz »

RustyRussell wrote: post #30
dingledork69 wrote: post #4

> 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?

Someone is creating tokens with the hope of selling them onwards. Most of them are created by a single entity, who spent about $30M in fees to do so, so presumably they expect people to buy them, and thus profit. The only reason most Bitcoin users care is that they pushed up fees for everyone else (there is limited block space, so miners take the highest bids). Such few pressure is expected to be the norm eventually,…

> they pushed up fees for everyone else (there is limited block space, so miners take the highest bids)

Imagine if your Visa card became hundreds of times more expensive to use during the Christmas shopping period.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#44

Post by nullc »

willmadden wrote: post #23

TLDR/non-crypto summary: Bitcoin's developers made changes recently that allow much larger transactions, with blocks up to 4MB in size on the Bitcoin blockchain in support of "BRC-20" tokens, which is Bitcoin's feature reduced version of Ethereum's ERC-20 token. These same developers block attempts to increase the block size in Bitcoin, which would allow more throughput and transaction capacity. The increased demand…

Wow. That is a take my breath away level of untruthfulness.

> in in support of "BRC-20" tokens, which is Bitcoin's feature reduced version of Ethereum's ERC-20 token

It appears that BRC-20 is primarily affiliated with Calvin Ayre, the person backing "Bitcoin SV" and the conman pretending to be the creator of Bitcoin -- the three main entities connected to it are all funded by Ayre and they've been bragging pretty loudly about their disruption of Bitcoin ( https://nitter.it/B2029org/status/1655611301412982784 ). I've heard speculation that the attacks are either a marketing pitch for "Bitcoin SV" (e.g. create congestion on Bitcoin then pivot to the unauditable centralized BSV blockchain, which always has room cause it's easy to scale centralized systems) or an effort to get Bitcoin community members to propose protocol changes to block the flood in order to substantiate the allegations in either of the Ayre-affiliated 6 billion dollar or hundreds-of-billions-of-dollars lawsuits.

I'm not aware of any previous active Bitcoin developer that had anything to do with BRC-20 tokens, if you know of any I'm sure the bitcoin community would be very interested in learning of it.

> changes recently that allow much larger transactions,

Unless you are referring to increasing the capacity of blocks back in 2017, no change to the consensus rules that allowed larger transactions has happened. You can easily verify this for yourself by starting up an older copy of Bitcoin and observe that it accepts everything fine.

In any case, this "BRC-20" crap is mostly only embedding 89 bytes of data ( https://twitter.com/jratcliff/status/1655669410206457865#m )-- it doesn't need any larger transactions. It happens to stuff it into the most recent transaction type, but there is no reason that it couldn't put 89 bytes of data into pretty much any other kind of transaction.

I think the false claim that BRC-20 was made possible by recent changes is mixture of confusion and an intentional deceptive cooperation cracking move, intended to direct even more harassment at project contributors but it's just not true.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#45

Post by nullc »

rvz wrote: post #17
nullc wrote: post #2

Fraud 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.

Not so, a key element in many fraudulent schemes is to use faux transparency to either market the fraud ("Look how popular this is, everyone's doing it!") or to create a false sense of security ("This can't be fraudulent, the absolute worst place to do fraud is on a traceable and a transparent blockchain.").

Beyond that, data isn't knowledge. That there is a lot of data doesn't mean you actually know much of value.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#46

Post by tylersmith »

givemeethekeys wrote: post #40
RustyRussell wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone is creating tokens with the hope of selling them onwards. Most of them are created by a single entity, who spent about $30M in fees to do so, so presumably they expect people to buy them, and thus profit. The only reason most Bitcoin users care is that they pushed up fees for everyone else (there is limited block space, so miners take the highest bids). Such few pressure is expected to be the norm eventually,…

Does that means that the cost of transferring bitcoin will only go up with time?

The cost will rise and fall based on demand for block space. If that demand only goes up, then yes.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#47

Post by nullc »

RustyRussell wrote: post #30
dingledork69 wrote: post #4

> 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?

Someone is creating tokens with the hope of selling them onwards. Most of them are created by a single entity, who spent about $30M in fees to do so, so presumably they expect people to buy them, and thus profit. The only reason most Bitcoin users care is that they pushed up fees for everyone else (there is limited block space, so miners take the highest bids). Such few pressure is expected to be the norm eventually,…

> Most of them are created by a single entity,

Those that aren't are probably created by other people intending to immediately sell them to a single entity: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/13e3di3/can_someo...

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#48

Post by scotty79 »

krupan wrote: post #39

This looks like money laundering. Someone had about $30 million in illicitly obtained Bitcoin. They set up a mining operation, paid themselves the $30 mil in mining fees to mint the NFTs, and now they have legitimate looking mining profits of $30 million.

You can't pay specific miners to mine your inscriptions, I think.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#49

Post by tylersmith »

ShamelessC wrote: post #19
wmf wrote: post #14

Ordinal 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?

Bitcoins have always been non-fungible. Ordinals are just a standard for referencing a specific coin down to the unit (Satoshi) level that can be objectively determined. You can then "Inscribe" a given ordinal with a data payload such as json and image data.
Post reply on HN