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

211–220 of 235 posts

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#211

Post by simiones »

RustyRussell wrote: post #205
simiones wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lighntning, also known as not-Bitcoin. Lightning does away with Bitcoin's guarantees, unless you close the channel after each transaction, at which point it costs more than sending BTC directly. And something like CashApp is even worse - it only uses BTC as a way to circumvent banking regulations, and for name recognition. Otherwise, it could just as easily work on top of regular banking, or do away with BTC entirely…

This first paragraph is simply untrue. You are always holding a valid signature to spend the latest funds. The additional assumption vs simply holding your own funds is a throughput requirement: that miners not censor your transactions for some (up-front-chosen) period of time. With normal funds there is a non-censoring requirement, but it's more vague since the miners may have to censor you forever to make your fund…

It is not. If we have an open channel and I send a payment to you and confirm that you have received it (and perhaps that you sent some good my way), I can then close my channel on the BTC network claiming that no transaction happened. Lightning does allow you to punish this, but only if you find out in time - otherwise, the transaction is essentially rolled back - but the goods you sent are obviously not. This way, I can double-spend my BTC and roll back arbitrarily late into the future (assuming the channel stays open).

And related to censorship, I'm not sure what is the point you are trying to make. Still, censoring forever is not hard (you just add some wallet address in a list, and look those up before choosing which transactions to include in a block), and is completely equivalent to how payments censorship works in regular banks as well.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#212

Post by xk_id »

dakom wrote: post #209
xk_id wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

They don't need their own in-house bespoke infrastructure, the hard part is user identity, and there are many services that will host this for you and also integrate seamlessly with third party providers (Firebase, for example, which will let you identify via Google, Meta, GitHub, Twitter, etc. right out of the box) The difference between Firebase and Ethereum+metamask isn't a significant development cost for anythin…

How the hell does firebase enable users to interact p2p to exchange a digital asset from one vendor with an asset from another, or use them as collateral for loans?

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#213

Post by xk_id »

dakom wrote: post #208
xk_id wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Illuvium is just a trading game with 3d graphics. This is not what I meant at all Their videos which tease advanced game mechanics look like pure hype to raise money from the gullible. Their white paper says nothing about how this works and their repo has no code. Here's what I want to know: Player 1 shoots. Can player 2 see the trajectory of the shot before it hits them? If yes- how do they avoid cheating? If no- ho…

> Their videos which tease advanced game mechanics look like pure hype to raise money from the gullible.

There’s gameplay demos on youtube dude. There are users beta testing the games.

> they don't actually have any on-chain physics

Again, on-chain physics is stupid. Illuvium is just an example where the assets you obtain in one game are also integrated in a different game (interoperability, because you brought it up as something cool that you didn’t think existed yet).

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#214

Post by agentgumshoe »

xk_id wrote: post #213
dakom wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Illuvium is just a trading game with 3d graphics. This is not what I meant at all Their videos which tease advanced game mechanics look like pure hype to raise money from the gullible. Their white paper says nothing about how this works and their repo has no code. Here's what I want to know: Player 1 shoots. Can player 2 see the trajectory of the shot before it hits them? If yes- how do they avoid cheating? If no- ho…

> Their videos which tease advanced game mechanics look like pure hype to raise money from the gullible. There’s gameplay demos on youtube dude. There are users beta testing the games. > they don't actually have any on-chain physics Again, on-chain physics is stupid. Illuvium is just an example where the assets you obtain in one game are also integrated in a different game (interoperability, because you brought it up…

Ooh, so I can take my mount from WoW and use it in, Tetris?

There no practical use case there, unless the other games are pretty much the same. Unless you mean cross-platform, in which case who gets to keep the money you spent?

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#215

Post by dakom »

xk_id wrote: post #212
dakom wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't need their own in-house bespoke infrastructure, the hard part is user identity, and there are many services that will host this for you and also integrate seamlessly with third party providers (Firebase, for example, which will let you identify via Google, Meta, GitHub, Twitter, etc. right out of the box) The difference between Firebase and Ethereum+metamask isn't a significant development cost for anythin…

How the hell does firebase enable users to interact p2p to exchange a digital asset from one vendor with an asset from another, or use them as collateral for loans?

In the exact same way that blockchain does - you present a token that can be validated by your peers.

However, in blockchain it's the combo of your private key to sign your wallet, along with the consensus engine where decentralized voting decides to accept the generation and association of new tokens.

In centralized servers, it's the combo of your credentials to login, along with the servers that update the database.

Once you own a token, you can create signatures for it that other peers can validate. For example

https://firebase.google.com/docs/auth/admin/create-custom-to...

I've already addressed your points about collateral and loans. That's purely business logic, and has nothing at all to do with NFTs (which are _only_ usertoken_id mappings)

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#216

Post by dakom »

xk_id wrote: post #213
dakom wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Illuvium is just a trading game with 3d graphics. This is not what I meant at all Their videos which tease advanced game mechanics look like pure hype to raise money from the gullible. Their white paper says nothing about how this works and their repo has no code. Here's what I want to know: Player 1 shoots. Can player 2 see the trajectory of the shot before it hits them? If yes- how do they avoid cheating? If no- ho…

> Their videos which tease advanced game mechanics look like pure hype to raise money from the gullible. There’s gameplay demos on youtube dude. There are users beta testing the games. > they don't actually have any on-chain physics Again, on-chain physics is stupid. Illuvium is just an example where the assets you obtain in one game are also integrated in a different game (interoperability, because you brought it up…

You misunderstood what I said. Let me repeat:

> that gives added functionality. Everything is governed by DAO. Interop can be voted in

What I mean by functionality is _actual_ functionality. Like, I earn a shield in one game and now it lets me deflect hits with new animations in another, so the DAO would need to vote in code changes. This is what I meant by interop too.

Not being able to see JPGs that you import across games. Like I said, I built something like that as a weekend project and custom cw721 contracts and unity. It's not hard. It's also not interesting to me.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#217

Post by scotty79 »

TheDudeMan wrote: post #197
throwaway290 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

They choose transactions to include before they attempt mine a block. Then after they successfully mine a block (which is rare) those transactions become a part of the ledger. Usually they take the transcations from public mempool that contains transactions waiting to be confirmed. But in theory miners could include the transactions that were never put in the mempool. Although they would need to have a significant portion of global hashrate to mine such blocks at any sensible rate, not just very occasionally.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#218

Post by gtirloni »

andirk wrote: post #203
gtirloni wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That demand comes from scammers and other fun activities.

I have bought domains with bitcoin when they offer. I heard someone used USD for a domain, and it turns out USD is used by scammers!

Was it done out of curiosity a few times or do you use Bitcoin as a currency daily?

Do you know anyone using Bitcoin as a currency daily? How many people do you think are using Bitcoin as a currency for legal business VS the number of people using it to speculate on its price and/or shady activities?

I'd love to be proved wrong but unfortunately neither of us will be able to collect this information so I guess we have to agree to disagree and live inside our little bubbles.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#219

Post by xk_id »

dakom wrote: post #215
xk_id wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How the hell does firebase enable users to interact p2p to exchange a digital asset from one vendor with an asset from another, or use them as collateral for loans?

In the exact same way that blockchain does - you present a token that can be validated by your peers. However, in blockchain it's the combo of your private key to sign your wallet, along with the consensus engine where decentralized voting decides to accept the generation and association of new tokens. In centralized servers, it's the combo of your credentials to login, along with the servers that update the database…

> In the exact same way that blockchain does -

So if i have a software licence and i want to exchange it for a concert ticket that a stranger doesn’t need anymore, where precisely do i go, today, to make this happen? What’s the app name or the website i go to? Because i know exactly where to go to exchange NFTs, in a secure, configurable and trustless manner.

> That's purely business logic

Call it whatever you want, the infrastructure that enables it and that is already functional today is only compatible with NFTs.

Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

#220

Post by xk_id »

dakom wrote: post #216
xk_id wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their videos which tease advanced game mechanics look like pure hype to raise money from the gullible. There’s gameplay demos on youtube dude. There are users beta testing the games. > they don't actually have any on-chain physics Again, on-chain physics is stupid. Illuvium is just an example where the assets you obtain in one game are also integrated in a different game (interoperability, because you brought it up…

You misunderstood what I said. Let me repeat: > that gives added functionality. Everything is governed by DAO. Interop can be voted in What I mean by functionality is _actual_ functionality. Like, I earn a shield in one game and now it lets me deflect hits with new animations in another, so the DAO would need to vote in code changes. This is what I meant by interop too. Not being able to see JPGs that you import acro…

> What I mean by functionality is _actual_ functionality. Like, I earn a shield in one game and now it lets me deflect hits with new animations in another

Yes, literally how Illuvium games work. Eg in the mobile city-building game you build factories that extract minerals, which are then available either to trade with other players or to use in the desktop MMORPG as materials to forge weapons.

Post reply on HN