I’ve seen a bunch of discussion on Twitter mentioning Runes (I think in the context of Ordinals), but I have basically zero idea what they are.
Can someone share an ELI5 explanation of what Runes are and their relationship to Ordinals (if any)?
383 sats \ 1 reply \ @ambosstech 16 Apr
They are a simple version of coins that are minted on Bitcoin specifically using OP_Returns.
They are not designed to have any technical advantages, sidestepping problems with crypto marketing. Instead, they are named assets that are great for gambling.
Shorter token "rune" names become available as time goes on.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @piecover 17 Apr
I tried hard not to agree but now I agree
reply
75 sats \ 3 replies \ @ch0k1 15 Apr
Here's a useful article that tries to explain the protocol.
reply
87 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 16 Apr
NOTHING is useful about these crap.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @BlokchainB 16 Apr
Thanks Darth
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xIlmari 16 Apr
I don't think it "tries" to explain anything. It reads more like an advertisement than a documentation. I see no difference between that and a 100 NFT campaigns on Shithereum.
reply
181 sats \ 15 replies \ @nym 15 Apr
@lloyddunne summed it up nicely in a comment to me yesterday.
reply
26 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xIlmari 16 Apr
I mean, people used to collect banknotes with interesting serial numbers. Isn't that essentially the same?
If so, you can't "assign" a rarity; a sat's rarity is in the eye of the beholder. Someone might look for sats whose "serial numbers" are divisible by a high power of 10, others by a high power of 2, or 42.
Under this interpretation this means that a VAST majority of ordinals are unremarkable and worthless ("not worth more than the sat they're printed on").
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nym 16 Apr
Yep I agree
reply
26 sats \ 12 replies \ @piecover 16 Apr
There is nothing rare about ordinals, they are just scams
reply
6 sats \ 11 replies \ @0xIlmari 16 Apr
Ordinals themselves are not a scam. It's just a protocol of simply assigning a number to every sat ever produced. In that regard, there can only be one, for example, sat #10000000000, and that makes it "rare", within that protocol.
What is a "scam", or more accurately false advertising, is claiming that it's the ONLY "true" way of numbering sats, the only one that gives them value.
One could devise a number of variations of this protocol which would assign different numbers to the same sats, making different sats "rare" (maybe a better word is "attractive") under different systems.
reply
6 sats \ 0 replies \ @piecover 16 Apr
Yeah, it's a scam. They are attacking the network with arbitrary data exploiting some loop holes it's smart but still a scam
reply
6 sats \ 9 replies \ @oomahq 16 Apr
Claiming the ability to meaningfully assign a serial number to sats is the scam.
reply
6 sats \ 8 replies \ @0xIlmari 16 Apr freebie
No, that's not a scam, it's entirely possible. That's why Ordinals is a protocol, a well-defined way of doing things. Just because you don't need it or like it, doesn't make it any less "meaningful".
Sats are produced in a predictable manner, you can assign a number to each sat produced. Then you need to devise rules that govern what how these assignments follow when coins are split and merged later.
What I'm pointing out that there can be many different ways of doing this, with different rules. So the question is, what (if anything) makes Ordinals the "best" way of numbering sats (other than being the first way)? The answer is, the advertising and publicity built around it.
reply
6 sats \ 7 replies \ @oomahq 16 Apr
It's possible inasmuch as selling lunar plots is also possible. There's also many different ways of partitioning the moon and sell the plots to credulous people, yet it's clearly still a scam.
Pretending you're able to identify individual units of an integer number is not any different.
reply
16 sats \ 6 replies \ @0xIlmari 16 Apr
I just take issue with calling the protocol itself a scam. It's just an algorithm/technology.
It's like calling a coordinate system of the Moon a scam. It's not, even if multiple coordinate systems can exist. Selling plots based on that coordinate system is the scam.
reply
16 sats \ 0 replies \ @piecover 16 Apr
It's calling them scarce that's the scam, they taking peoples bitcoin for few Sats. 1 Sat = 1 Sat, there are no rare Sats more rare than others in contrast you may endup paying more to use those so called "rare sats"
reply on another page
6 sats \ 4 replies \ @oomahq 16 Apr
To reiterate, no one can track and "tell apart" the five number ones that comprise the integer 5 (to pick a random example) like "ordinal theory" claims to do.
Indeed, the algorithm itself is nonsense/a scam.
view replies
33 sats \ 2 replies \ @jgbtc 16 Apr
Some shitcoin thing that will make fees high for a little bit and then will be forgotten.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 13 Oct
You are correct I believe (and in hindsight were)
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @notgeld 16 Apr
Runes can go into channels.
reply
24 sats \ 1 reply \ @OT 16 Apr
Sh$tcoins that use the op_return function. Apparently they won't affect block space as much as BRC-20 tokens have.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xIlmari 16 Apr
In so far as you pay full price for data storage via OP_RETURN as opposed to a discount for witness data with Ordinals.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @BlueSlime 16 Apr
Runes are basically a colored coins protocol designed for issuing tokenized assets. They are designed to replace BRC-20 with something more sensible. They are UTXO based, and rely on the OP_RETURN to store the token data (called a runestone). They do not use the ordinal system for anything, but a rune can be tied to an inscription.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @notgeld 16 Apr
Yes. Better Mastercoin/omni.
Very likely will have the same fate but there is important long term mechanics inside runes, plus it doesn't require dev efforts to exist.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @DesertDave 16 Apr
I know it as a tool used in meditation and setting intentions with a ritual. I'm guessing that isn't what we are talking about here.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @486DX2 17 Apr
transaction fee boosters
reply