37 ms·

Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person

159 points by cft 3y ago

rideontime 3y ago
What does the author mean by "influencing the regime of the entire blockchain"?
- nullc 3y ago
  This flood of transaction paid high fees, out-competing many other transactions for network capacity. To get your transactions confirmed you had to either outbid the flooder or wait until the flooder either runs out of money or gets tired of hemorrhaging it.
  - merrycherry 3y ago
    This isn't a problem with Satoshi's original protocol design. You should use BSV instead.
  - rideontime 3y ago
    Isn't this standard for cryptocurrency? Money = power?
    - TheDudeMan 3y ago
      Not just cryptocurrency.
      - AlexandrB 3y ago
        Cryptocurrency is different because this is the intended state of affairs. Not the result of corruption or back room deals.
        nullc 3y ago
        Money can be exchanged for goods and services, including for whatever kind of activity confers power in whatever alternative you would propose.
nullc 3y ago
Fraud and misrepresentation in the sphere of cryptocurrency? Say it isn't so! > This vulnerability may partly be due to the discount for witness vBytes in SegWit, That's erroneous thinking resulting from a false and confused description that uses the word "discount". An attacker's objective is to deny access to capacity to other participants by outbidding them for available capacity. It doesn't matter what units the capacity is in or how its measured, all that matters is how much they're willing to spend each and every block to outbid the other participants. The fact that prunable witness data doesn't use up as much of the capacity limit as other data is completely irrelevant to the attackers power. If, on the other hand, the attack were "we're using up the users disk space and it's cheaper to do it with transactions that have way more than typical witness bytes" that would be another story. But since the witness data is completely prunable it's not a suitable attack on storage to begin with, which is why it counts less against the capacity limit. > relaxed witness size restrictions in the P2TR (Pay to Taproot) transactions scheme I think that's also confused. Beyond the overall limit on the block there are no consensus limits. There have been standardness limits which limit what nodes are willing to relay and mine out of the box, but they're not imposed in consensus. My understanding is that recent ordinals floods have involved transactions over the standardness size limits, so at least those are being added with the cooperation of miners (tens of millions of dollars in fees apparently buys a lot of cooperation) so standardness rules are irrelevant, only consensus rules matter. So I think it's doubtful that standardness rules would help, and given the years of relentless harassment of bitcoin developers over other standardness rules like the 40 byte op_return limit I doubt anyone would bother trying even if they thought it might help. I think people fall into this kind of misunderstand because they fail to think through where transaction fees come from-- they're not specified by the protocol. They're a result of market forces acting between demand and capacity limits so there isn't a way to use up capacity at lower marginal cost since the cost arises directly from capacity. Or to be more clear: no way at issue here. I believe the authors of the taproot specs intentionally designed it to not need any other limits than the overall block weight specifically because having additional limits creates an avenue for attackers to use capacity at lower cost. An example is the old 20,000 sigops limitation in pre-segwit transactions: An attacker could create small transactions that burned up the separate sigops limit without using much weight, and since the sigops limit is normally not even close to limiting the miners txn selection would irrationally accept attack transactions that displaced more honest transactions than should have been implied by their fees. I believe that attack vector is closed by the mining algorithm using an ad-hoc solution of the mining transaction scaling a transactions share of the sigops total to the weight limit and using it as the transaction weight in selection. This, in theory, results in an incentive incompatible transaction selection (so a miner following it would eventually be bankrupt against miners that didn't) but thats a non-issue in practice because only attack transactions trigger the maximum operation and when the attack doesn't work there is no incentive to create the attack transactions. But that kind of ad-hoc fix was only really viable because the sigops limit was high enough to never matter for real transactions. Perhaps more relevantly, on the subject of attacking through denial of service-- the attacker is free to structure their transactions however they like... they only need to burn up capacity. In any case, outbidding isn't normally an attack that creates much concern because it's phenomenally expensive and the expense is ongoing: the to block the next best transaction X the attacker has to spend more that it in fees in each block its blocked from... while the defender only needs to get their transaction in once. The fact that adding random limits can't actually stop a spam attack (at most it just forces the attacker to shape their transactions in a less distinguishable way) was the first thing people pointed out on the mailing list when this latest generation of spam attacks was brought up.
bastian 3y ago
[flagged]
dingledork69 3y ago
> 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?
- jeron 3y ago
  +1 for an ELI5
  - MuffinFlavored 3y ago
    Don't invest in hyped technologies that you don't understand.
- JoBrad 3y ago
  Probably that it’s very centralized. Or at least that the price is able to be highly influenced by a few individuals/groups.
  - MuffinFlavored 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - cft 3y ago
      They have a very strict automod to protect their echo chamber. Post it there and you'll find out lol
      - BlueTemplar 3y ago
        [flagged]
  - tric 3y ago
    >Probably that it’s very centralized. Or at least that the price is able to be highly influenced by a few individuals/groups. The article and the parent comment are about Ordinals. Your comment appears to be an opinion about Bitcoin the asset and/or network itself.
qup 3y ago
Can anyone summarize the implications of this?
- TheDudeMan 3y ago
  It was a nice surprise for the miners. I think the minting event was good sign for bitcoin. But one person having a bunch of inscriptions that they paid dearly for? Inconsequential.
  - gbaygon 3y ago
    also pushed for binance to support lightning network, which brings greater adoption of that tech
nl 3y ago
Background: https://www.coindesk.com/learn/brc-20-explained-how-tokens-on-bitcoin-work-and-why-they-are-controversial/ https://www.coindesk.com/learn/brc-20-explained-how-tokens-o... > The total transaction fees spent by this entity to dominate the Inscriptions are estimated to be 1056 BTC as of May 25, 2023... We leave the conclusions to the reader. I don't really understand what conclusion we are supposed to draw. > However, we notice that by spending only 0.005% of the total Bitcoin supply on transaction fees, a single entity can significantly impact the entire Blockchain regime. This illustrates that if a whale or a governmental actor, possessing hundreds of thousands of Bitcoins, decides to spam the blockchain, they could impede its usability for normal payments. Maybe this? Interesting that someone was prepared to spend 1056 BTC on this. 1056 BTC is ~US$30M (edit: I had $3M before) at the current time.
- dhbanes 3y ago
  You're off by an order of magnitude. 1,056 BTC is currently worth approximately $29m.
  - sdenton4 3y ago
    But could you sell $30m of Bitcoin without tanking the price?
    - miracle2k 3y ago
      Easily.
      - senectus1 3y ago
        assuming the lemmings don't panic :-P
        anonporridge 3y ago
        The lemmings are all already dead for this cycle. Only mountain goats remain, and they are comfortable with steep terrain, both up and down.
wmf 3y ago
Ordinal is a fairly new feature so it isn't terribly surprising that it's not widely used yet. Somebody has to be the first user, just as Satoshi mined most of the early blocks. More concerning is that the Bitcoin blockchain is getting clogged with Ordinals, crowding out other transactions. Spending $29M to DoS Bitcoin is either a really large or really small amount depending on your perspective.
- ShamelessC 3y ago
  As far as I can tell ordinals are just NFT's? Is that correct?
  - therein 3y ago
    They store JSON using the OP_PUSHDATA. The JSON has known fields like ticker, containing the name of the asset, call type like "transfer", "mint" etc. and an amount field. There are then external indexers that index these transactions and keep tabs. It is not a feature like GP mentions. It is a fun hack that's being taken too seriously.
  - tylersmith 3y ago
    Bitcoins have always been non-fungible. Ordinals are just a standard for referencing a specific coin down to the unit (Satoshi) level that can be objectively determined. You can then "Inscribe" a given ordinal with a data payload such as json and image data.
    - nullc 3y ago
      Fungibility is a social/political/economic property. No two macroscopic physical objects are identical either, but we can treat them as fungible by disregarding their insubstantial differences.
      - diego_sandoval 3y ago
        That's assuming that the insubstantial differences are detectable. Monero is fungible not because we choose to ignore the differences between units, but because we actually can't detect any relevant difference that makes it traceable or identifiable in practice.
willmadden 3y ago
TLDR/non-crypto summary: Bitcoin's developers made changes recently that allow much larger transactions, with blocks up to 4MB in size on the Bitcoin blockchain in support of "BRC-20" tokens, which is Bitcoin's feature reduced version of Ethereum's ERC-20 token. These same developers block attempts to increase the block size in Bitcoin, which would allow more throughput and transaction capacity. The increased demand for Bitcoin transactions from BRC-20 combined with the limited block size caused transaction fees to skyrocket, making Bitcoin too expensive (again) to be used for normal retail use. The article points out that 80% of these giant "BRC-20" transactions were coming from a single individual/entity in control of one private key. Effectively one individual caused the backlog in Bitcoin with sky high transaction fees.
- nullc 3y ago
  Wow. That is a take my breath away level of untruthfulness. > in in support of "BRC-20" tokens, which is Bitcoin's feature reduced version of Ethereum's ERC-20 token It appears that BRC-20 is primarily affiliated with Calvin Ayre, the person backing "Bitcoin SV" and the conman pretending to be the creator of Bitcoin -- the three main entities connected to it are all funded by Ayre and they've been bragging pretty loudly about their disruption of Bitcoin ( https://nitter.it/B2029org/status/1655611301412982784 https://nitter.it/B2029org/status/1655611301412982784 ). I've heard speculation that the attacks are either a marketing pitch for "Bitcoin SV" (e.g. create congestion on Bitcoin then pivot to the unauditable centralized BSV blockchain, which always has room cause it's easy to scale centralized systems) or an effort to get Bitcoin community members to propose protocol changes to block the flood in order to substantiate the allegations in either of the Ayre-affiliated 6 billion dollar or hundreds-of-billions-of-dollars lawsuits. I'm not aware of any previous active Bitcoin developer that had anything to do with BRC-20 tokens, if you know of any I'm sure the bitcoin community would be very interested in learning of it. > changes recently that allow much larger transactions, 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. In any case, this "BRC-20" crap is mostly only embedding 89 bytes of data ( https://twitter.com/jratcliff/status/1655669410206457865#m https://twitter.com/jratcliff/status/1655669410206457865#m )-- it doesn't need any larger transactions. It happens to stuff it into the most recent transaction type, but there is no reason that it couldn't put 89 bytes of data into pretty much any other kind of transaction. I think the false claim that BRC-20 was made possible by recent changes is mixture of confusion and an intentional deceptive cooperation cracking move, intended to direct even more harassment at project contributors but it's just not true.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
krupan 3y ago
This looks like money laundering. Someone had about $30 million in illicitly obtained Bitcoin. They set up a mining operation, paid themselves the $30 mil in mining fees to mint the NFTs, and now they have legitimate looking mining profits of $30 million.
- scotty79 3y ago
  You can't pay specific miners to mine your inscriptions, I think.
  - krupan 3y ago
    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
    - scotty79 3y ago
      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.
  - csomar 3y ago
    You can if you only pass these txs to your friend… however, this will make it very suspicious that only one miner is mining you.
    - TheDudeMan 3y ago
      It doesn't work like that.
      - throwaway290 3y ago
        It actually does. Miners choose which transactions to mine.
moose_man 3y ago
[flagged]
annoyedd 3y ago
Most belong to Udi Wertheimer, who hints it was funded by faketoshi Craig Wright as an attack on bitcoin. It's a very inefficient way to do 'nfts' on Bitcoin. There exists layer 2 protocol to make this work much better. Bitcoin will evolve and correct issues like this.
- kinakomochidayo 3y ago
  LN isn’t even scalable. And even then, the data wouldn’t be saved on-chain which is the main driving point when compared to NFTs on Ethereum which are just links. On-chain will always have more value compared to inferior ways on L2, similar to how Ethereum L1 NFTs are more valuable than ones created on L2s.
fomine3 3y ago
Is is a big thing for Bitcoin, or like just a random garbage coin but named Bitcoin?
kevdragon6 3y ago
This is the unisat wallet/service -- not a single person. https://unisat.io/ https://unisat.io/ Explanation thread: https://twitter.com/mononautical/status/1663383996561072129?s=46 https://twitter.com/mononautical/status/1663383996561072129?...
- cft 3y ago
  The linked substack also published this tweet
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- rvz 3y ago
  Exactly. It just goes to show that most of the comments here are entirely clueless about the whole ordeal and don't wait for the facts to come out and jump with any nonsense takes. It turns out it is just a new service that has gotten traction attracting some BTC volume in the recent uptick in Bitcoin ordinals. That is it. All can be found and traced for anyone to see in the blockchain.
- tzfld 3y ago
  Even with this, it seems to be an unhealthy concentration at first.
  - Tepix 3y ago
    They were quick to market, competition is inevitable.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

159 points by cft 3y ago

rideontime 3y ago

What does the author mean by "influencing the regime of the entire blockchain"?

nullc 3y ago
This flood of transaction paid high fees, out-competing many other transactions for network capacity. To get your transactions confirmed you had to either outbid the flooder or wait until the flooder either runs out of money or gets tired of hemorrhaging it.
- merrycherry 3y ago
  This isn't a problem with Satoshi's original protocol design. You should use BSV instead.
- rideontime 3y ago
  Isn't this standard for cryptocurrency? Money = power?
  - TheDudeMan 3y ago
    Not just cryptocurrency.
    - AlexandrB 3y ago
      Cryptocurrency is different because this is the intended state of affairs. Not the result of corruption or back room deals.
      - nullc 3y ago
        Money can be exchanged for goods and services, including for whatever kind of activity confers power in whatever alternative you would propose.

nullc 3y ago

Fraud and misrepresentation in the sphere of cryptocurrency? Say it isn't so! > This vulnerability may partly be due to the discount for witness vBytes in SegWit, That's erroneous thinking resulting from a false and confused description that uses the word "discount". An attacker's objective is to deny access to capacity to other participants by outbidding them for available capacity. It doesn't matter what units the capacity is in or how its measured, all that matters is how much they're willing to spend each and every block to outbid the other participants. The fact that prunable witness data doesn't use up as much of the capacity limit as other data is completely irrelevant to the attackers power. If, on the other hand, the attack were "we're using up the users disk space and it's cheaper to do it with transactions that have way more than typical witness bytes" that would be another story. But since the witness data is completely prunable it's not a suitable attack on storage to begin with, which is why it counts less against the capacity limit. > relaxed witness size restrictions in the P2TR (Pay to Taproot) transactions scheme I think that's also confused. Beyond the overall limit on the block there are no consensus limits. There have been standardness limits which limit what nodes are willing to relay and mine out of the box, but they're not imposed in consensus. My understanding is that recent ordinals floods have involved transactions over the standardness size limits, so at least those are being added with the cooperation of miners (tens of millions of dollars in fees apparently buys a lot of cooperation) so standardness rules are irrelevant, only consensus rules matter. So I think it's doubtful that standardness rules would help, and given the years of relentless harassment of bitcoin developers over other standardness rules like the 40 byte op_return limit I doubt anyone would bother trying even if they thought it might help. I think people fall into this kind of misunderstand because they fail to think through where transaction fees come from-- they're not specified by the protocol. They're a result of market forces acting between demand and capacity limits so there isn't a way to use up capacity at lower marginal cost since the cost arises directly from capacity. Or to be more clear: no way at issue here. I believe the authors of the taproot specs intentionally designed it to not need any other limits than the overall block weight specifically because having additional limits creates an avenue for attackers to use capacity at lower cost. An example is the old 20,000 sigops limitation in pre-segwit transactions: An attacker could create small transactions that burned up the separate sigops limit without using much weight, and since the sigops limit is normally not even close to limiting the miners txn selection would irrationally accept attack transactions that displaced more honest transactions than should have been implied by their fees. I believe that attack vector is closed by the mining algorithm using an ad-hoc solution of the mining transaction scaling a transactions share of the sigops total to the weight limit and using it as the transaction weight in selection. This, in theory, results in an incentive incompatible transaction selection (so a miner following it would eventually be bankrupt against miners that didn't) but thats a non-issue in practice because only attack transactions trigger the maximum operation and when the attack doesn't work there is no incentive to create the attack transactions. But that kind of ad-hoc fix was only really viable because the sigops limit was high enough to never matter for real transactions. Perhaps more relevantly, on the subject of attacking through denial of service-- the attacker is free to structure their transactions however they like... they only need to burn up capacity. In any case, outbidding isn't normally an attack that creates much concern because it's phenomenally expensive and the expense is ongoing: the to block the next best transaction X the attacker has to spend more that it in fees in each block its blocked from... while the defender only needs to get their transaction in once. The fact that adding random limits can't actually stop a spam attack (at most it just forces the attacker to shape their transactions in a less distinguishable way) was the first thing people pointed out on the mailing list when this latest generation of spam attacks was brought up.

bastian 3y ago

[flagged]

dingledork69 3y ago

> 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?

jeron 3y ago
+1 for an ELI5
- MuffinFlavored 3y ago
  Don't invest in hyped technologies that you don't understand.
JoBrad 3y ago
Probably that it’s very centralized. Or at least that the price is able to be highly influenced by a few individuals/groups.
- MuffinFlavored 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - cft 3y ago
    They have a very strict automod to protect their echo chamber. Post it there and you'll find out lol
    - BlueTemplar 3y ago
      [flagged]
- tric 3y ago
  >Probably that it’s very centralized. Or at least that the price is able to be highly influenced by a few individuals/groups. The article and the parent comment are about Ordinals. Your comment appears to be an opinion about Bitcoin the asset and/or network itself.

qup 3y ago

Can anyone summarize the implications of this?

TheDudeMan 3y ago
It was a nice surprise for the miners. I think the minting event was good sign for bitcoin. But one person having a bunch of inscriptions that they paid dearly for? Inconsequential.
- gbaygon 3y ago
  also pushed for binance to support lightning network, which brings greater adoption of that tech

nl 3y ago

Background: https://www.coindesk.com/learn/brc-20-explained-how-tokens-on-bitcoin-work-and-why-they-are-controversial/ https://www.coindesk.com/learn/brc-20-explained-how-tokens-o... > The total transaction fees spent by this entity to dominate the Inscriptions are estimated to be 1056 BTC as of May 25, 2023... We leave the conclusions to the reader. I don't really understand what conclusion we are supposed to draw. > However, we notice that by spending only 0.005% of the total Bitcoin supply on transaction fees, a single entity can significantly impact the entire Blockchain regime. This illustrates that if a whale or a governmental actor, possessing hundreds of thousands of Bitcoins, decides to spam the blockchain, they could impede its usability for normal payments. Maybe this? Interesting that someone was prepared to spend 1056 BTC on this. 1056 BTC is ~US$30M (edit: I had $3M before) at the current time.

dhbanes 3y ago
You're off by an order of magnitude. 1,056 BTC is currently worth approximately $29m.
- sdenton4 3y ago
  But could you sell $30m of Bitcoin without tanking the price?
  - miracle2k 3y ago
    Easily.
    - senectus1 3y ago
      assuming the lemmings don't panic :-P
      - anonporridge 3y ago
        The lemmings are all already dead for this cycle. Only mountain goats remain, and they are comfortable with steep terrain, both up and down.

wmf 3y ago

Ordinal is a fairly new feature so it isn't terribly surprising that it's not widely used yet. Somebody has to be the first user, just as Satoshi mined most of the early blocks. More concerning is that the Bitcoin blockchain is getting clogged with Ordinals, crowding out other transactions. Spending $29M to DoS Bitcoin is either a really large or really small amount depending on your perspective.

ShamelessC 3y ago
As far as I can tell ordinals are just NFT's? Is that correct?
- therein 3y ago
  They store JSON using the OP_PUSHDATA. The JSON has known fields like ticker, containing the name of the asset, call type like "transfer", "mint" etc. and an amount field. There are then external indexers that index these transactions and keep tabs. It is not a feature like GP mentions. It is a fun hack that's being taken too seriously.
- tylersmith 3y ago
  Bitcoins have always been non-fungible. Ordinals are just a standard for referencing a specific coin down to the unit (Satoshi) level that can be objectively determined. You can then "Inscribe" a given ordinal with a data payload such as json and image data.
  - nullc 3y ago
    Fungibility is a social/political/economic property. No two macroscopic physical objects are identical either, but we can treat them as fungible by disregarding their insubstantial differences.
    - diego_sandoval 3y ago
      That's assuming that the insubstantial differences are detectable. Monero is fungible not because we choose to ignore the differences between units, but because we actually can't detect any relevant difference that makes it traceable or identifiable in practice.

willmadden 3y ago

TLDR/non-crypto summary: Bitcoin's developers made changes recently that allow much larger transactions, with blocks up to 4MB in size on the Bitcoin blockchain in support of "BRC-20" tokens, which is Bitcoin's feature reduced version of Ethereum's ERC-20 token. These same developers block attempts to increase the block size in Bitcoin, which would allow more throughput and transaction capacity. The increased demand for Bitcoin transactions from BRC-20 combined with the limited block size caused transaction fees to skyrocket, making Bitcoin too expensive (again) to be used for normal retail use. The article points out that 80% of these giant "BRC-20" transactions were coming from a single individual/entity in control of one private key. Effectively one individual caused the backlog in Bitcoin with sky high transaction fees.

nullc 3y ago
Wow. That is a take my breath away level of untruthfulness. > in in support of "BRC-20" tokens, which is Bitcoin's feature reduced version of Ethereum's ERC-20 token It appears that BRC-20 is primarily affiliated with Calvin Ayre, the person backing "Bitcoin SV" and the conman pretending to be the creator of Bitcoin -- the three main entities connected to it are all funded by Ayre and they've been bragging pretty loudly about their disruption of Bitcoin ( https://nitter.it/B2029org/status/1655611301412982784 https://nitter.it/B2029org/status/1655611301412982784 ). I've heard speculation that the attacks are either a marketing pitch for "Bitcoin SV" (e.g. create congestion on Bitcoin then pivot to the unauditable centralized BSV blockchain, which always has room cause it's easy to scale centralized systems) or an effort to get Bitcoin community members to propose protocol changes to block the flood in order to substantiate the allegations in either of the Ayre-affiliated 6 billion dollar or hundreds-of-billions-of-dollars lawsuits. I'm not aware of any previous active Bitcoin developer that had anything to do with BRC-20 tokens, if you know of any I'm sure the bitcoin community would be very interested in learning of it. > changes recently that allow much larger transactions, 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. In any case, this "BRC-20" crap is mostly only embedding 89 bytes of data ( https://twitter.com/jratcliff/status/1655669410206457865#m https://twitter.com/jratcliff/status/1655669410206457865#m )-- it doesn't need any larger transactions. It happens to stuff it into the most recent transaction type, but there is no reason that it couldn't put 89 bytes of data into pretty much any other kind of transaction. I think the false claim that BRC-20 was made possible by recent changes is mixture of confusion and an intentional deceptive cooperation cracking move, intended to direct even more harassment at project contributors but it's just not true.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

krupan 3y ago

This looks like money laundering. Someone had about $30 million in illicitly obtained Bitcoin. They set up a mining operation, paid themselves the $30 mil in mining fees to mint the NFTs, and now they have legitimate looking mining profits of $30 million.

scotty79 3y ago
You can't pay specific miners to mine your inscriptions, I think.
- krupan 3y ago
  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
  - scotty79 3y ago
    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.
- csomar 3y ago
  You can if you only pass these txs to your friend… however, this will make it very suspicious that only one miner is mining you.
  - TheDudeMan 3y ago
    It doesn't work like that.
    - throwaway290 3y ago
      It actually does. Miners choose which transactions to mine.

moose_man 3y ago

[flagged]

annoyedd 3y ago

Most belong to Udi Wertheimer, who hints it was funded by faketoshi Craig Wright as an attack on bitcoin. It's a very inefficient way to do 'nfts' on Bitcoin. There exists layer 2 protocol to make this work much better. Bitcoin will evolve and correct issues like this.

kinakomochidayo 3y ago
LN isn’t even scalable. And even then, the data wouldn’t be saved on-chain which is the main driving point when compared to NFTs on Ethereum which are just links. On-chain will always have more value compared to inferior ways on L2, similar to how Ethereum L1 NFTs are more valuable than ones created on L2s.

fomine3 3y ago

Is is a big thing for Bitcoin, or like just a random garbage coin but named Bitcoin?

kevdragon6 3y ago

This is the unisat wallet/service -- not a single person. https://unisat.io/ https://unisat.io/ Explanation thread: https://twitter.com/mononautical/status/1663383996561072129?s=46 https://twitter.com/mononautical/status/1663383996561072129?...

cft 3y ago
The linked substack also published this tweet
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
rvz 3y ago
Exactly. It just goes to show that most of the comments here are entirely clueless about the whole ordeal and don't wait for the facts to come out and jump with any nonsense takes. It turns out it is just a new service that has gotten traction attracting some BTC volume in the recent uptick in Bitcoin ordinals. That is it. All can be found and traced for anyone to see in the blockchain.
tzfld 3y ago
Even with this, it seems to be an unhealthy concentration at first.
- Tepix 3y ago
  They were quick to market, competition is inevitable.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]