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

71–80 of 235 posts

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#71

Post by xk_id »

agentgumshoe wrote: post #37
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…

I think your last statement is completely wrong. NFT's and memecoins are a grift by scammers, no more. People being duped is certainly no evidence of any actual threat to state powers. Most of the memecoins seem to just be money raising vehicles to bolster exchange profits

Actually, you’re the one who got duped, if you genuinely believe that every single NFT is a scam and that you understand them better than every single NFT owner.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#72

Post by cirrus3 »

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."

The explanation isn't about how this effects any single person. It also says to "imagine".

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#73

Post by willmadden »

nullc wrote: post #44
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 lou…

Nothing I said was untruthful.

The Taproot upgrade made the witness data discount from Segwit available to be used by inscriptions. This is what led to the explosion in BRC-20 transactions that are clogging up the mempool. According to this research, it's all coming from a single entity.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#74

Post by nullc »

willmadden wrote: post #73
nullc wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lou…

Nothing I said was untruthful. The Taproot upgrade made the witness data discount from Segwit available to be used by inscriptions. This is what led to the explosion in BRC-20 transactions that are clogging up the mempool. According to this research, it's all coming from a single entity.

> Nothing I said was untruthful.

Not so, the very first sentence of your post was a flagrant untruth.

> 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,

Okay, go ahead link to this "recent change" in support of "BRC-20" tokens. -- gonna be pretty hard in light of the fact that BRC-20 activity appears to be primarily (perhaps exclusively) by parties connected to the multiple billion dollars in lawsuits against bitcoin developers, and the fact that old versions of bitcoin are just as happy with the same transactions and the limits on transaction size are the same at least since 2017 or earlier.

> what led to the explosion in BRC-20 transactions

The BRC-20 transactions are just embedding 89 bytes of data (see link). They're a spam attack of a sort which has always been possible and is nearly impossible to block, I'm not aware of any basis under which you can argue anything "led to" it other than an attacker being willing to spend millions of dollars a day to DOS attack the the network.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#75

Post by krupan »

scotty79 wrote: post #48
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.

There was talk on Twitter during the height of this of inscriptions bypassing the public mempool and going straight to certain miners. I can't find it with quick googling, but miners are always free to choose which transactions they include in the blocks they are mining

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#76

Post by thatguy0900 »

qindra wrote: post #69
givemeethekeys wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I was under the impression that long term, the fees will increase and the fees will be the miners reward

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#77

Post by LudwigNagasena »

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.

Imagine if Visa and Mastercard formed a duopoly and used their market power to extract fees from merchants to the point of warranting government action to cap the fees.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#78

Post by rideontime »

nullc wrote: post #65
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.

Isn't this standard for cryptocurrency? Money = power?

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#79

Post by paulgb »

thatguy0900 wrote: post #76
qindra wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I was under the impression that long term, the fees will increase and the fees will be the miners reward

Unlike the block reward (mining subsidy) which is set according to a fixed schedule, fees are set by the market. They will go up if demand for L1 transactions go up, but there’s nothing in the protocol to push them up over time.

Satoshi’s vision was for Bitcoin to be used as digital cash[1], so that transaction demand would be enough to sustain the security of the system. Since the “cash” use case has fallen away to the “store of value” use case, it seems a bit dubious.

Transaction costs have recently gone up because of ordinals and NFTs so we’ll see if that sticks.

[1] the Bitcoin paper was called “Bitcoin: a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#80

Post by rideontime »

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."

Disregarding the irrelevance of this comment, in your example, aren't you the consumer who is paying the fee via the increased price?
Post reply on HN