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

111–120 of 235 posts

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#111

Post by xk_id »

jboy55 wrote: post #94
xk_id wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If I believe 99% of all NFTs sold were get-rich-quick scams, and because of that I've never have bought an NFT, how am I being duped? What am I missing by not being involved in it? Or more accurately, what did I miss out on? Seems like I missed out as much as I missed out not getting any Beanie Babies.

It’s not up to me to know what you should spend your money on. However, your statistic makes no sense. Objectively speaking, many NFTs being minted are technical in nature, such as concentrated liquidity on AMMs; it’s nonsensical to compare this use case to beanie babies. That’s just one example. There are also private communities on social media which are gated and can only be accessed by verifying NFT ownership. Not saying you should care, but there is organic demand for access to those communities and you’re deluding yourself if you think their members are all imbeciles who believed that JPGs were actually being stored on the blockchain, or whatever. There are also examples of video games which use NFTs as interoperable assets.

You probably have a very specific image of NFTs that was fed to you by crypto opponents and which is incomplete and naive. That doesn’t mean that I think you missed out on anything. That’s subjective

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#112

Post by nl »

can16358p wrote: post #100
TheDudeMan wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could impede its usability, at a high cost per hour. Worth it?

Depends on the motivation. An ordinal minter trying to sell their ordinals to make money: no. A government or an influential entity who wants to "prove" Bitcoin is unreliable (for whatever reason): yes.

> A government or an influential entity who wants to "prove" Bitcoin is unreliable (for whatever reason): yes.

There seems to be much cheaper ways to magnify negative public sentiment on crypto though.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#113

Post by adastra22 »

TheDudeMan wrote: post #82
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.

Wow, imagine. However, bitcoin isn't trying to be Visa.

Where did you get this impression? I've been involved with bitcoin since 2010, and replacing Visa has absolutely been the goal since the very beginning.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#114

Post by Paul-Craft »

foogazi wrote: post #70
Paul-Craft wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

0 * 1000 = 0

Actually, my card costs me negative money to use. I get cash back with no annual fee.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#115

Post by Paul-Craft »

landemva wrote: post #107
vkou wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that fee right back in cashback + fraud protection + peace of mind from not having to carry cash + money saved by the merchant due to not having to deal with physical cash/getting robbed/etc. Visa keeps a very narrow margin, for providing... A pretty damn good service.

Those without rewards cards, and those who pay with cash, are the economic losers. Generally those living paycheck to paycheck - poor people.

That's right:

> We estimate an aggregate annual redistribution of $15 billion from less to more educated, poorer to richer, and high to low minority areas, widening existing disparities.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2023007pap...

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#116

Post by Paul-Craft »

cirrus3 wrote: post #72
Paul-Craft wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

I actually profit via cash back from my cards. They pay me. Imagine that.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#118

Post by zmgsabst »

nullc wrote: post #68
zmgsabst wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

They can be when the tokens are themselves bounties which can be automatically claimed, eg by posing SAT problems to the network which represent a transformed version of your problem and the script claiming them a solution you can translate back.

This can be (and was prototyped as) a marketplace for optimization problems — until the implementation moved in another direction. Creating a marketplace where the goods can automatically be obtained for tokens is different than fiat currency in meaningful ways and provides a reason for people to buy the tokens at all.

That any money can be used for all that BTC is good for (except evading bank controls) is why there’s slowed adoption following that change.

- - - -

I didn’t respond because thats not my understanding, but arguing over old history isn’t a productive use of time.

Accusing me of “bad faith” because I didn’t respond how you wanted me to and instead chose to engage in the productive part of the discussion is itself poor conversational etiquette — particularly when you didn’t bother to provide any evidence for your claim. Despite claims that doing so would be easy.

Perhaps you should set the example of politeness you purportedly expect.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#120

Post by rvz »

nullc wrote: post #45
rvz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even if the fraud or false sense of security happens, it is still traceable. That is the whole point. It is there for everyone to see and untangle the actions that have happened on the ledger and can be verified to be faked or not.

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

The blockchain doesn't just have 'data', it has the 'information' that has the recorded transactions useful enough for those who want to trace the actions that happened on the ledger; fraudulent, faked, or not. This is exactly why tools like Chainalysis exist.

Post reply on HN