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

61–70 of 235 posts

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#61

Post by nullc »

zmgsabst wrote: post #42
simple-thoughts wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

> Those are the same people who stopped BTC from having smart contracts via a full featured VM

The only person who has ever reduced scripts functionality is Satoshi.

But the conartist pretending to be Satoshi has been paying people to claim otherwise. It's easily falsified.

> BTC was supposed to be liquid as a market for compute by posing and solving challenges to give it an intrinsic value

Citation needed. That doesn't even make sense: You can't give the Bitcoin currency itself "intrinsic value" just because people use it to buy or sell some kind of good or another.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#62

Post by nullc »

tylersmith wrote: post #49
ShamelessC wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fungibility is a social/political/economic property. No two macroscopic physical objects are identical either, but we can treat them as fungible by disregarding their insubstantial differences.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#63

Post by [deleted] »

willmadden wrote: post #60
drexlspivey wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This is completely false. 4MB blocks are possible since segwit in 2017 and BRC-20 has nothing to do with bitcoin, it’s just some third party protocol that…

What about my reply is false? Ordinal inscription transactions are huge and stored on-chain. This caused the backlog.

[deleted]

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#65

Post by nullc »

rideontime wrote: post #5

What does the author mean by "influencing the regime of the entire blockchain"?

This flood of transaction paid high fees, out-competing many other transactions for network capacity. To get your transactions confirmed you had to either outbid the flooder or wait until the flooder either runs out of money or gets tired of hemorrhaging it.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#66

Post by smashem »

mvdtnz wrote: post #43
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,…

> 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.

That's why there's layer 2 solutions like Lightning to scale bitcoin's usability.

And application-level solutions like Cash App.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#67

Post by zmgsabst »

nullc wrote: post #61
zmgsabst wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

> Those are the same people who stopped BTC from having smart contracts via a full featured VM The only person who has ever reduced scripts functionality is Satoshi. But the conartist pretending to be Satoshi has been paying people to claim otherwise. It's easily falsified. > BTC was supposed to be liquid as a market for compute by posing and solving challenges to give it an intrinsic value Citation needed. That does…

Sure you can: if the tokens are a medium of requesting compute, they take on a base value because they can be exchanged for that service. BTC was a commodity token for compute.

Right now, there’s no native market for BTC to either drive its adoption or create a value even in the presence of inflation. Which is why its “killer app” has remained circumventing financial controls — as that’s the service its network provides. In contrast to ETH.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#68

Post by nullc »

zmgsabst wrote: post #67
nullc wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those are the same people who stopped BTC from having smart contracts via a full featured VM The only person who has ever reduced scripts functionality is Satoshi. But the conartist pretending to be Satoshi has been paying people to claim otherwise. It's easily falsified. > BTC was supposed to be liquid as a market for compute by posing and solving challenges to give it an intrinsic value Citation needed. That does…

Sure you can: if the tokens are a medium of requesting compute, they take on a base value because they can be exchanged for that service. BTC was a commodity token for compute. Right now, there’s no native market for BTC to either drive its adoption or create a value even in the presence of inflation. Which is why its “killer app” has remained circumventing financial controls — as that’s the service its network provi…

"The tokens" can't be a medium of requesting compute except in the sense that any money can be used to pay for goods and services. When we talk about something having intrinsic value it doesn't really make sense to argue it on the basis of "you can use it as money to pay people to do stuff", that's an extrinsic value.

(It also seems to be a non-sequitur. If you want to pay people to perform computation for you only the most minimal functionality from Bitcoin's script is required to do so in a trustless manner, e.g. https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/02/26/zero-knowledge-conting... )

You've also appear to have ignored my correction on your "stopped" and "BTC was supposed to" remarks, if you're engaging in this discussion in good faith and were simply mistaken it would be polite to retract your error.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#69

Post by qindra »

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?

if you think about it in the long-term, the rewards eventually go to zero and there's no incentive for any of the miners to mine and the whole thing collapses

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#70

Post by foogazi »

Paul-Craft wrote: post #58
mvdtnz wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

My Visa card doesn't cost me anything to use, because I don't carry a balance. It costs the merchant money to process the transaction, which would get passed on to consumers in general as higher prices. So, if this happened, what you'd see is people complaining about "inflation."

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

> My Visa card doesn't cost me anything to use

Gp said imagine

Post reply on HN