Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

Yes, in 2017 bitcoin block limit was replaced with a larger weight limit, but "discounted price" is nonsense: fees aren't priced by the protocol. Each block has a limit of 4 million, each transaction uses some amount of the limit and offers some fee. Income maximizing behavior by miners is to fill the block up with as much fees as they can fit within the limit which (if you ignore transaction dependencies and end packing) is accomplished by dividing fees by capacity usage and sorting. Taproot didn't change anything with respect to that, which you can easily verify for yourself by grabbing a copy of Bitcoin from (say) 2019 and observing that it accepts the same transactions. I'm quite confused as to why anyone is bringing up taproot other than that it was the most recent consensus change, but it didn't and couldn't have added any means to add more data because it strictly reduced the set of blocks considered valid (and didn't use the segwit technique of adding a new field to transactions to escape the prior limits). I could offer some cynical guesses, but I doubt they'd advance the discussion.

I'd happily agree these things are not particularly relevant, but you brought them up and stated them falsely.

The rest of your posts continues with the false claims "These same developers block attempts to increase the block size in Bitcoin" -- yet your own post admits blocks can now be 4MB, it was increased. Of course, absolutely zero evidence for your 'block attempts to increase' when your own post contradicts it! lol

> You are arguing about intent

Quite the opposite: "Unless you are referring to increasing the capacity of blocks back in 2017, no change to the consensus rules that allowed larger transactions has happened. You can easily verify this for yourself by starting up an older copy of Bitcoin and observe that it accepts everything fine."

The offense at 'in support of "BRC-20" tokens' isn't even a question of intent, it's a casual impossibility. Bitcoin's capacity increase was in 2017. Taproot (which isn't relevant, but lets ignore that) was designed in 2019-- these things couldn't have been done in support of BRC-20 which is a few months old. Nor would they have needed to, since the BRC-20 data is 89 bytes, people had no problem embedding files tens of kilobytes in size secretly in transactions many years ago.

> I agree this could be an adversary with an incentive to take market share away

I don't see how that's actually disputable. We already know who's funding it, it's funded by Calvin Ayre as the people engaging in it have openly disclosed. ...Unless you want to dispute that Ayre is an adversary! :D Exactly why is a total guessing game, I doubt there is only a single reason.

Yeah naw. Bitcoin worked just fine without this Bank 2.0 LN crap that can’t even scale.

Ordinals wouldn’t even exist without Segwit.

0-conf worked just fine for immediate transactions.

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 gain by having proprietary centralized servers? Let's avoid flowery language and deal with reality:

Scenario 1) I buy a sword from Joe on OpenSea. Epic games recognizes NFTs as a generic spec and lets me import it and use in the game. That's wonderful, but in this case I do not need to buy anything from Joe, I can just mint my own sword for free, since they'll recognize any spec-compliant contract.

Scenario 2) I buy a sword from Epic on OpenSea. Epic games only recognizes NFTs that they have the authority to mint. Yay. But now why didn't I just buy it from Epic directly, since I already depend on them fully for auth (they can just migrate the nft contract at will), what does having it on Ethereum add?

Scenario 3) Just like Scenario 2, but Epic recognizes a list of official partners that they trust but do not own. Meh. it's not that interesting. Might be a little more interesting if those partners are themselves DAO-controlled. Still, I think it's more in the category of "kinda neat" instead of "gamechanging"

Scenario 4) I earn a "high score" NFT by playing an Epic game, and they mint an NFT for me (I've gone through their login _and_ associated my wallet with their account). Other games recognize this specific NFT address as being owned by Epic and give special utility. Again, this is pointless, we've already placed all our trust in Epic's closed system, they might as well just expose an endpoint

Fully on-chain ecosystems with no leaks are a different beast imho. Decentralization is cool! It's just extremely crappy for game ux right now. I expect the tech here to catch up eventually. When it does, we can have:

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 cool. However, what's innovative about this is that it's basically open-source collaborative business. I do think that's pretty huge, in theory, if it took off. The hard part would be the actual programming and game design to make the interop interesting. The NFT part is still just an auth token, nothing more.

[flagged]