81–90 of 235 posts
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Background: 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…
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Can anyone summarize the implications of this?
I think the minting event was good sign for bitcoin.
But one person having a bunch of inscriptions that they paid dearly for? Inconsequential.
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.
Wow, imagine. However, bitcoin isn't trying to be Visa.
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.
nullc breaks it down here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36119707