Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person or entity \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person or entity block21m.substack.com/p/most-bitcoin-inscriptions-belong-d6d

8617 sats \ 19 comments \ @sancristrader 29 May 2023 bitcoin

view all related items

226 sats \ 2 replies \ @benthecarman 29 May 2023

Their transaction fees amount to 1056 BTC, single-handedly influencing the regime of the entire blockchain.

hahahaha wtf

229 sats \ 0 replies \ @orthwyrm 30 May 2023

What's even funnier is that the BRC-20 format is ludicrously inefficient in terms of on-chain footprint. Had the developers simply chosen to represent the data in binary as opposed to ASCII JSON, those fees would be ~80% lower.

There's a good thread on this here: https://nitter.net/jratcliff/status/1655669410206457865#m

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @sudonaka 30 May 2023

I asked the regime leader of Bitcoin and he said this statement was false

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @02b0efd57b2 30 May 2023 freebie

And the conclusion of the article: "It takes 'only' 0.005 % of all BTC to make the network temporarily slower/more expensive." The article views this as a vulnerability rather than focussing on the stupidity of spending that amount of BTC to create inscriptions/tokens....

42 sats \ 5 replies \ @nullama 30 May 2023

Isn't this similar to how an exchange would work?, as in, there's one central company that creates those and they sell them to random people?

That would explain the massive amount of BTC used for this. They probably sold them for more than that.

224 sats \ 1 reply \ @orthwyrm 30 May 2023

Possible explanation: https://nitter.net/mononautical/status/1663383996561072129?s=46

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @bitslinger 30 May 2023

Oh! That makes sense! Pheww

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @sancristrader OP 30 May 2023

Any competent exchange uses a unique pubKey (address) per transaction or at least rotates pubKeys from a pool. Why would they use a single pubKey for 8m+ Inscriptions?

6 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 30 May 2023

Indeed. More than likely this is an inscription service

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @rijndael 30 May 2023

yes. This is an inscription-on-demand service/wallet called unisat

23 sats \ 0 replies \ @timechain 30 May 2023

Good explanation of what happened, involving the Unisat inscription service website.

12 sats \ 0 replies \ @eduardopro 30 May 2023

Hilarious.

All of those transactions seemed fake from the get-go, a market doesn't form that fast.

The question is: Did Udi and his minion spend 1000 BTC or do they have backing from high above?

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @fiatbad 30 May 2023

I'm a bit disturbed by this.

But I'm also on my second bottle of wine for the evening. Anyone out there wanna trade your Sats for this smelly $100 bill sitting on my table? I'll give you the "no KYC" premium. Anyone?

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @fedelang 30 May 2023

On wine myself too. Not the best shape to handle wallets :)

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @patrick1 30 May 2023

Correction: This tweet clarifies that while all these inscriptions are produced by Unisat.io using Unisat's single private key, they are actually owned by various Unisat users.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nkmg1c_ventures 30 May 2023

That's like 25-30 million USD on ordinal inscriptions

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @pourteaux 30 May 2023

blog post is wrong.... unisat is not one entity... revealing that ppl would pump this falsehood

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Chep 30 May 2023

Imagine spending 1000+ bitcoin just to end up making Bitcoin stronger in the end. Bitcoin is so based & anti-fragile 🧡 ✊🏼

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @bitslinger 30 May 2023

deleted by author