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

131–140 of 235 posts

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#131

Post by agentgumshoe »

xk_id wrote: post #129
dakom wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NFTs are essentially bearer tokens, very much like literal Bearer tokens in HTTP. To take one of your examples- gating auth to a community.. the community is usually an off-chain centralized thing like Discord. Due to that, the auth logic sits behind closed doors. Verifying an NFT has no advantages over verifying a random string that only the intended user has. i.e. traditional bearer tokens of some sort. The only ad…

> Verifying an NFT has no advantages over verifying a random string that only the intended user has. i.e. traditional bearer tokens of some sort. I’m so tired of seeing people confidently post like this about crypto. There has been so much effort put into explaining, you really have no excuse anymore to parrot it. Very easy rebuttal: NFTs can be minted in exchange for currency and can be traded between owners later –…

Have you got examples of where those functions are actually used, and that they maintain the loan value consistently?

nftifi.com: "secure a loan funded by a lender seeking to earn returns from their investment."

Lol, It's part of the grift.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#132

Post by moonchrome »

dhbanes wrote: post #28
sdenton4 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But could you sell $30m of Bitcoin without tanking the price?

24 hour BTC-USD volume is > $15bn so yes.

Short selling and algo trading on exchanges would get counted towards that volume ?

With the exchange scams going around daily o wouldn't be surprised if that number is order of magnitude higher than the actual USD involved and in trading.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#133

Post by andhans »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #130
adastra22 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Satoshi called it digital cash. Turns out it is not a great cash alternative. Therefore it is now an asset. And we can revise history so that Satoshi meant asset all along. I didn’t say ponzi did I? No. good.

« The “electronic cash” envisioned by Satoshi is cash; it is not notes, scrip or bank credits. We have come to think of bank notes as cash, but they are actually contracts for debt. The note holder is owed something by the issuer. Cash is a commodity with certain properties that make it useful as money. Cash is largely gone from the world, and people cannot return to physical commodity money, as it cannot be moved online. Bitcoin is really our only option to guard against inflation, counterfeit, capital controls and high costs in general. Some might take issue with this vision, but that's because they imagine existing banks, financial institutions, and – most importantly – censorship. A global censorship-resistant settlement network is not like anything we've ever seen before. It is, indeed, the goal many people are working towards.

That system will allow people to buy their coffee with electronic cash, but Bitcoin will never carry every coffee purchase on-chain. Those who make the Visa-analogy either don’t understand how Visa works, or don’t understand how Bitcoin works.»

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#134

Post by adastra22 »

andhans wrote: post #133
quickthrower2 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Satoshi called it digital cash. Turns out it is not a great cash alternative. Therefore it is now an asset. And we can revise history so that Satoshi meant asset all along. I didn’t say ponzi did I? No. good.

« The “electronic cash” envisioned by Satoshi is cash; it is not notes, scrip or bank credits. We have come to think of bank notes as cash, but they are actually contracts for debt. The note holder is owed something by the issuer. Cash is a commodity with certain properties that make it useful as money. Cash is largely gone from the world, and people cannot return to physical commodity money, as it cannot be moved on…

Modern day paper currency are not debt instruments. They are very much cash.

Whether bitcoin is used for direct payments or payment channel settlements is irrelevant. What is important is self-custody. Cash works and has the properties it does because it is a (mostly) fungible bearer bond. Bitcoin is also a (mostly) fungible bearer bond regardless of whether you transact on chain or through lightning.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#135

Post by adastra22 »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #130
adastra22 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Satoshi called it digital cash. Turns out it is not a great cash alternative. Therefore it is now an asset. And we can revise history so that Satoshi meant asset all along. I didn’t say ponzi did I? No. good.

I don’t disagree. Bitcoin that isn’t cash has no purpose though. It’s why I left that space, despite having made some pretty fundamental contributions.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#136

Post by jelani_t »

andhans wrote: post #133
quickthrower2 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Satoshi called it digital cash. Turns out it is not a great cash alternative. Therefore it is now an asset. And we can revise history so that Satoshi meant asset all along. I didn’t say ponzi did I? No. good.

« The “electronic cash” envisioned by Satoshi is cash; it is not notes, scrip or bank credits. We have come to think of bank notes as cash, but they are actually contracts for debt. The note holder is owed something by the issuer. Cash is a commodity with certain properties that make it useful as money. Cash is largely gone from the world, and people cannot return to physical commodity money, as it cannot be moved on…

I like the tech. I even paid for my coffee with the Lightning network in El Salvador and went to BTC Miami. The things I'm still not sure about are:

1. When will the value become relatively stable? This flies in the face of the store of value argument.

2. How is Monero-like fungibility going to be added? Good cash needs to be fungible.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#137

Post by Tepix »

tzfld wrote: post #127
kevdragon6 wrote: post #117

This is the unisat wallet/service -- not a single person. https://unisat.io/ Explanation thread: https://twitter.com/mononautical/status/1663383996561072129?...

Even with this, it seems to be an unhealthy concentration at first.

They were quick to market, competition is inevitable.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#138

Post by 0xAFFFF »

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.

That's funny because bitcoiners can't shut the fuck up about Visa whenever the abysmal throughput of the bitcoin network or its humongous power consumption is brought up.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#139

Post by FabHK »

RustyRussell wrote: post #105
givemeethekeys wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes, Bitcoin is designed to migrate from the current inflation subsidy to fees paid by the users of the system. https://rusty-lightning.medium.com/the-three-economic-eras-o... for more detail that you probably want...

Indeed, and then the cost of a single transaction (around USD 50 currently) will be borne by the sender/recipient, rather than by all Bitcoin holders via increase of the money supply (as is the case now).

(Note that the actual cost is probably higher due to externalities in the waste of electricity and equipment, and borne by all of us.)

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#140

Post by tromp »

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,…

> Such few pressure is expected to be the norm eventually

Or rather, such fee pressure is required to be the norm eventually for bitcoin to remain secure when block subsidies become insignificant (halving every 4 years, 1024x less in 4 decades).

Post reply on HN