50 sats \ 3 replies \ @ZezzebbulTheMysterious 2 Jan \ parent \ on: How to kill Ordinals - by @udiWertheimer bitcoin
This is the exact problem. The incentive model with fees is off. The use case for inscriptions are to burn 100% of fees. The use case for payments are to spend as minimal fees for an economical transfer. These will always be in conflict, and burning 100% of your sats for fees is not the mode that Bitcoiners desire from the chain.
It cannot coexist, because the spammers will always outspend the transactors, as they WANT to burn all their sats. This is a big problem.
It is interesting to see how this point, and in fact this whole issue, has evolved over the last 8 months. Interesting to see how perspectives and incentives change... and have changed and that fees have returned to 2-4 sats / v byte. And frequently 2 sats / v byte. Those who said the ordinals people / jpeg people would run out of money eventually... were probably correct.
reply
reply
True (I don't know if it's half but it's a large percentage).
However the mass 1 input to many 300 sat outputs continue, they are still there in every block, if fewer of them.
I suppose they are some kind of token standard right now but i'm not sure. On ordpool they appear as xyxyxz.btc over and over (just with different numbers).
I suppose that after the 'mint' is over and speculators move to the next token... the minter can decide to consolidate at any cost and try again, or just abandon the utxos completey. However they are leaving potentially hundreds of $$ of bitcoin on the table though in many small utxos with every block... so I'm not sure how it is economically sustainable for them. When they run out of buyers... they just run out of money even at today's low fee rates.
reply