28 ms·

> 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.
  - JoBrad 3y ago
    No, I was talking about Ordinals. FTA, right after the parent's comment: > 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.
    - tric 3y ago
      That quote is about "Bitcoin supply" and impact to the "entire Blockchain regime" (ie the Bitcoin blockchain), not Ordinals. Regardless, Ordinals is not centralized. See the correction in the article.
- agentgumshoe 3y ago
  I think this is the point that gets missed in arguments about state actors being involved. That doesn't matter, what matters is that very few people (e.g. miners, exchanges, whales, etc) can determine very large outcomes for cryptocurrencies, with no way to avoid them.
  - fdhfdjkfhdkj 3y ago
    The only way to win is not to play
hehendmdndb 3y ago
I am not a crypto fan, but I believe this would constitute a 51% attack https://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/51-attack.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/51-attack.asp
- wmf 3y ago
  It's not. A 51% attack involves mining, not transactions.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Stagnant 3y ago
  This has nothing to do with a 51% attack. All this article seems to be stating is that someone with large amounts of bitcoin can raise the transaction fees by sending a lot of transactions, which isn't really a surprise since only a limited amount of transactions can fit in a block.
simple-thoughts 3y ago
I disagree with the following, but my understanding is Bitcoin purists believe that ordinals are moving Bitcoin away from Satoshis’s whitepaper introduction of Bitcoin as peer to peer electronic cash. In this mindset, meme coins and nfts are scams or at best unimportant entertainment commodities rather than a core innovation of blockchains. So the use of the Bitcoin chain’s limited block space to create these ordinals increases fees for peer to peer cash transactions and move Bitcoin away from Satishi’s vision. Probably the reason for leaving the conclusions to the reader is conspiratorial. Since one single wallet is responsible for most ordinals, some people might believe it is a government actor trying to stop Bitcoin from becoming useful as peer to peer cash. Of course this is ridiculous as in fact the original premise is wrong as memecoin and nft entertainment products represent a greater threat to state power than peer to peer cash - as they represent popular sovereign property that a lot of people want.
- agentgumshoe 3y ago
  I think your last statement is completely wrong. NFT's and memecoins are a grift by scammers, no more. People being duped is certainly no evidence of any actual threat to state powers. Most of the memecoins seem to just be money raising vehicles to bolster exchange profits
  - xk_id 3y ago
    Actually, you’re the one who got duped, if you genuinely believe that every single NFT is a scam and that you understand them better than every single NFT owner.
    - jboy55 3y ago
      If I believe 99% of all NFTs sold were get-rich-quick scams, and because of that I've never have bought an NFT, how am I being duped? What am I missing by not being involved in it? Or more accurately, what did I miss out on? Seems like I missed out as much as I missed out not getting any Beanie Babies.
RustyRussell 3y ago
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, and has happened before, but there's been a prolonged period (years) of low fees so it was a bit of a surprise to many.
- givemeethekeys 3y ago
  Does that means that the cost of transferring bitcoin will only go up with time?
  - tylersmith 3y ago
    The cost will rise and fall based on demand for block space. If that demand only goes up, then yes.
  - scrum-treats 3y ago
    "We leave the conclusions to the reader. 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."
    - Paul-Craft 3y ago
      There are essentially no "normal payments" being done with Bitcoin.
      - iHeartVLC 3y ago
        [dead]
      - 3y ago
globalreset 3y ago
Someone (possibly, as nothing here is certain) mined most of this worthless "NFTs". Maybe out of passion, maybe hoping to sell them to idiots, maybe just to spam Bitcoin's blockchain. That's it. That all the conclusions to be had here. The whole thing is a big nothing. Idiots duped to pay for this stuff raised the floor for price of blockchain space from artificially low (due to still low adoption) to a more reasonable one (reflecting the value of global replicated censorship-resistant database). It doesn't change much in a great scheme of things. Some Bitcoin users are annoyed that Bitcoin transactions aren't nearly free as they used to, but it was always just a matter of time.
- nullc 3y ago
  > Maybe out of passion oh yeah, haven't we all had ones of those days where we get excited about something and spend thirty million dollars on transaction fees? :) (I don't disagree with the rest, but I am chuckling a bit at people wrapping themselves into pretzels trying to find ways to see it as potentially earnestly motivated...)
hgsgm 3y ago
The conclusion is that the OP author doesn't know what they are talking about. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36121331 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36121331

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.
- JoBrad 3y ago
  No, I was talking about Ordinals. FTA, right after the parent's comment: > 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.
  - tric 3y ago
    That quote is about "Bitcoin supply" and impact to the "entire Blockchain regime" (ie the Bitcoin blockchain), not Ordinals. Regardless, Ordinals is not centralized. See the correction in the article.
agentgumshoe 3y ago
I think this is the point that gets missed in arguments about state actors being involved. That doesn't matter, what matters is that very few people (e.g. miners, exchanges, whales, etc) can determine very large outcomes for cryptocurrencies, with no way to avoid them.
- fdhfdjkfhdkj 3y ago
  The only way to win is not to play

hehendmdndb 3y ago

I am not a crypto fan, but I believe this would constitute a 51% attack https://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/51-attack.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/51-attack.asp

wmf 3y ago
It's not. A 51% attack involves mining, not transactions.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Stagnant 3y ago
This has nothing to do with a 51% attack. All this article seems to be stating is that someone with large amounts of bitcoin can raise the transaction fees by sending a lot of transactions, which isn't really a surprise since only a limited amount of transactions can fit in a block.

simple-thoughts 3y ago

I disagree with the following, but my understanding is Bitcoin purists believe that ordinals are moving Bitcoin away from Satoshis’s whitepaper introduction of Bitcoin as peer to peer electronic cash. In this mindset, meme coins and nfts are scams or at best unimportant entertainment commodities rather than a core innovation of blockchains. So the use of the Bitcoin chain’s limited block space to create these ordinals increases fees for peer to peer cash transactions and move Bitcoin away from Satishi’s vision. Probably the reason for leaving the conclusions to the reader is conspiratorial. Since one single wallet is responsible for most ordinals, some people might believe it is a government actor trying to stop Bitcoin from becoming useful as peer to peer cash. Of course this is ridiculous as in fact the original premise is wrong as memecoin and nft entertainment products represent a greater threat to state power than peer to peer cash - as they represent popular sovereign property that a lot of people want.

agentgumshoe 3y ago
I think your last statement is completely wrong. NFT's and memecoins are a grift by scammers, no more. People being duped is certainly no evidence of any actual threat to state powers. Most of the memecoins seem to just be money raising vehicles to bolster exchange profits
- xk_id 3y ago
  Actually, you’re the one who got duped, if you genuinely believe that every single NFT is a scam and that you understand them better than every single NFT owner.
  - jboy55 3y ago
    If I believe 99% of all NFTs sold were get-rich-quick scams, and because of that I've never have bought an NFT, how am I being duped? What am I missing by not being involved in it? Or more accurately, what did I miss out on? Seems like I missed out as much as I missed out not getting any Beanie Babies.

RustyRussell 3y ago

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, and has happened before, but there's been a prolonged period (years) of low fees so it was a bit of a surprise to many.

givemeethekeys 3y ago
Does that means that the cost of transferring bitcoin will only go up with time?
- tylersmith 3y ago
  The cost will rise and fall based on demand for block space. If that demand only goes up, then yes.
- scrum-treats 3y ago
  "We leave the conclusions to the reader. 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."
  - Paul-Craft 3y ago
    There are essentially no "normal payments" being done with Bitcoin.
    - iHeartVLC 3y ago
      [dead]
    - 3y ago

globalreset 3y ago

Someone (possibly, as nothing here is certain) mined most of this worthless "NFTs". Maybe out of passion, maybe hoping to sell them to idiots, maybe just to spam Bitcoin's blockchain. That's it. That all the conclusions to be had here. The whole thing is a big nothing. Idiots duped to pay for this stuff raised the floor for price of blockchain space from artificially low (due to still low adoption) to a more reasonable one (reflecting the value of global replicated censorship-resistant database). It doesn't change much in a great scheme of things. Some Bitcoin users are annoyed that Bitcoin transactions aren't nearly free as they used to, but it was always just a matter of time.

nullc 3y ago
> Maybe out of passion oh yeah, haven't we all had ones of those days where we get excited about something and spend thirty million dollars on transaction fees? :) (I don't disagree with the rest, but I am chuckling a bit at people wrapping themselves into pretzels trying to find ways to see it as potentially earnestly motivated...)

hgsgm 3y ago

The conclusion is that the OP author doesn't know what they are talking about. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36121331 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36121331