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

191–200 of 235 posts

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#191

Post by adastra22 »

tromp wrote: post #190
adastra22 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you assuming MW aggregation, and that’s how you’re amortizing CT cost?

No, I'm just using the fact that in a Mimmblewimble blockchain, the initial block download doesn't include any data about spent outputs. Neither the outputs themselves nor their rangeproofs. That's the beauty of MW. You could call that historical aggregation, but normally when people talk about aggregation (as I assume you do) it refers to aggregating transactions before they're included in a block. In other CT block…

Initial block download isn’t the bottleneck for scalability though. You can quite safely import a year-old utxo set, especially if there are utxo set commitments or if you already have access to a running node somewhere.

In my experience when people talk about on-chain scalability, they mean transactions per second of real-time validation. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think anyone in this thread was talking about IBD / validation of historical data.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#192

Post by anonporridge »

senectus1 wrote: post #64
miracle2k wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easily.

assuming the lemmings don't panic :-P

The lemmings are all already dead for this cycle.

Only mountain goats remain, and they are comfortable with steep terrain, both up and down.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#193

Post by tromp »

adastra22 wrote: post #191
tromp wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm just using the fact that in a Mimmblewimble blockchain, the initial block download doesn't include any data about spent outputs. Neither the outputs themselves nor their rangeproofs. That's the beauty of MW. You could call that historical aggregation, but normally when people talk about aggregation (as I assume you do) it refers to aggregating transactions before they're included in a block. In other CT block…

Initial block download isn’t the bottleneck for scalability though. You can quite safely import a year-old utxo set, especially if there are utxo set commitments or if you already have access to a running node somewhere. In my experience when people talk about on-chain scalability, they mean transactions per second of real-time validation. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think anyone in this thread was talking about IBD…

> Initial block download isn’t the bottleneck for scalability though.

It is for full nodes (fully verifying nodes). They don't trust the UTXO set to be correct just because miners keep building on it.

Huge chain size is exactly the reason why there are so few Ethereum full nodes (which takes weeks to sync), which makes it less decentralized.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#194

Post by scotty79 »

krupan wrote: post #75
scotty79 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Still it would take a lot of time to push $30mil this way if the miners involved don't have significant fraction of global hashrate.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#195

Post by nwienert »

Arkhaine_kupo wrote: post #156
usrbinbash wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI had tangible use cases even when it wasn't developed to the point where it could be applied to those. The problems AI is used to solve, existed before the technology to solve them. Bitcoin, and all the other "crypto"-tokens, have been looking for a problem to solve for 14 years.

It's the new money, I mean it's an investment, I mean it's a store of value, it is a tech backbone for web 3.0, it is an online deed... Soon they will find something it is reaaaally good at. Might solve some prime number conjecture by accident if they solve enough sudokus, I mean hashes.

You make some great points. Money, investments, banks, programmable money, decentralized organizations, VC where investors don't need accreditation (great for the little guy, bad for the 1%), deeds, remittances, prediction markets. Even capturing a fraction of a fraction of those would be a massive.

I used it quite a few times lately to pay open source contributors in countries that don't have access to Paypal. Paid my rent when Venmo blocked my account temporarily and I had to wait 2 weeks for checks to come in the mail. Used it for Mullvad VPN. Used it to get MJ on a market at far higher quality and better price than locally in Cali. Was super useful.

Paypal in and of itself makes the case, no need for any more.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#196

Post by TheDudeMan »

adastra22 wrote: post #113
TheDudeMan wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess from Twitter threads and bitcoin podcasts. It seems to me that bitcoin is trying to be Fedwire, not Visa.

Plus, trying to generally replace fiat and the monetary standard.

To be clear, when I say "bitcoin", I mean the L1.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#197

Post by TheDudeMan »

throwaway290 wrote: post #97
TheDudeMan wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't work like that.

It actually does. Miners choose which transactions to mine.

I thought miners decide which transactions to include after they win a block (which is extremely rare).

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#198

Post by adastra22 »

tromp wrote: post #193
adastra22 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Initial block download isn’t the bottleneck for scalability though. You can quite safely import a year-old utxo set, especially if there are utxo set commitments or if you already have access to a running node somewhere. In my experience when people talk about on-chain scalability, they mean transactions per second of real-time validation. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think anyone in this thread was talking about IBD…

> Initial block download isn’t the bottleneck for scalability though. It is for full nodes (fully verifying nodes). They don't trust the UTXO set to be correct just because miners keep building on it. Huge chain size is exactly the reason why there are so few Ethereum full nodes (which takes weeks to sync), which makes it less decentralized.

But even right now in bitcoin you can initialize a node with -assumeutxo to avoid IBD costs. You either get the UTXO set from a node you already control (and its turtles all the way down), or if bitcoin supported UTXO set commitments you simply pick a committed UTXO set from N blocks back, for some sufficiently large N. All block headers are downloaded, but full blocks back to the Nth block commitment are validated.

While technically SPV, this ends up being exactly the same security model overall, since an attacker that can invent (say) a full year's worth of alternate history to fool you can already perform arbitrary double-spends on main net. In addition, although this is not required, for most of bitcoin's history the last year or two of mining represents almost all of the proof of work anyway, so someone who serve you a more-work forked off false chain with a false UTXO set commitment could have also rewritten the block chain since genesis.

Bitcoin's security model already assumes this is not possible. So with UTXO set commitments (which bitcoin will eventually get in some form), you only need to IBD a few months worth of blocks, or maybe a year or so if you are truly paranoid.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#199

Post by xk_id »

Nextgrid wrote: post #150
xk_id wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 –…

> NFTs can be minted in exchange for currency So can bearer tokens, client certificates, concert tickets, etc. Put up a webpage that takes payments (including crypto if you so desire) and hands out whatever authentication instrument you want upon successful payment. > can be traded between owners later A conventional, non-chain-based system can also include this functionality. Presenting your current bearer token and…

> Any system where this kind of transfer makes sense and is willing to allow this kind of trade already has it

No it doesn’t have it. That was the whole point. The examples you gave had to each build their own in-house bespoke infrastructure for this functionality. With blockchains it already exists, it’s secure and any new app or user can start using it right away.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#200

Post by xk_id »

dakom wrote: post #185
dakom wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NFTs are only spec for smart contracts that dictate mappings between "owners" and "token ids". That's it. End of story. There isn't even a universal requirement that maps from token id to metadata like OpenSea's format. > NFTs can be minted in exchange for currency and can be traded between owners later The part of dApps that recognizes NFT ownership for releasing funds is just business logic that can be replaced wit…

I may have misunderstood your point of gaming. If your point was that games do not need to be on-chain, then it _really_ begs the question of what utility NFTs provide. Rephrased, in a game that depends on proprietary centralized servers, what do I gain by having a public ledger that the game can query to say I own some asset? Or, alternatively, in a game that recognizes arbitrary decentralized permissions, what do I…

> what do I gain by having a public ledger that the game can query to say I own some asset?

Literally read my comment that you replied to.

> Scenario 5) Doesn't exist now - but I play an on-chain game and earn some NFT. This is then recognized in another on-chain game that gives added functionality. Everything is governed by DAO. Interop can be voted in

This is how Illuvium works right now.

Post reply on HN