I think it is to early to say. On the one hand, BRC-20 uses bitcoin so in that sense they are increasing adoption. But the question I think you are asking is this TYPE of adoption good for bitcoin growth. I don't think higher fees are gonna hurt adoption long term but short term it may. Who knows. Honestly, I don't see the value of this stuff... yet. I try to be open minded and I haven't looked into it deeply. So far from what I've seen it is a waste of time.
Doesn't matter. Nothing anyone can do about it aside from screaming into the wind.
For the record, I think it's mixed. High fees suck, but we were always going to eventually end up with higher fees. Think of it as a strong incentive for new users to go straight to Lightning.
Telling people not to shitcoin, even if its on Bitcoin, is not doing nothing. Its rather doing something on the social layer of Bitcoin rather than the tech stack.
I appreciate Casey's "harm reduction" argument for NFTs and shitcoins on bitcoin. People were going to do it anyway (and they certainly do, no amount of yelling about it has stopped them), at least bring them into the fold where they won't get fucked as hard. I don't care about any of that stuff, but in general, it's better from a net-harm perspective.
I 100% disagree. It does not reduce harm in any way shape or form. It makes the scam seem more legitimate. A scam is a scam. There is no morality in writing code for it.
Drugs are addictive. Addicts can't stop because its all their mind craves. Shitcoins are just scams and people just need more information as to why and how that is.
Given that ERC-20s never had a use case, BRC-20s will likely never have a use case either. As for adoption, adoption of what? No, it will not bring us closer to a world where we don't worry about the price of Bitcoin, but rather look at the price of things in Bitcoin (the hyperbitcoinization people typically talk about when they talk about adoption) nor will shitcoiners stop using shitcoins other than BRC-20 shitcoins, nor will shitcoiners have more Bitcoin when working with BRC-20 shitcoins (built on Bitcoin is not the same as being Bitcoin)
What it will do, is stab at the heart of an argument that Bitcoin is not the same as shitcoins, a message to keep people away from scams and focus on the real revolution being built. So it will solidify further the perception of Bitcoin and shitcoins being the same concept, a corporate issued token similar to Robux but for rugpulls and scams.
Upon further review of this "Trustless Computer" thing I realized that it's just another Bitcoin affinity scam. It uses Bitcoin chain as a data storage but that's all. It's a completely alien chain with its own native token. It also lacks a consensus mechanism, so in case it forks you won't be warned that your version of TC has a different state from your friend's TC.
Colored coins (might be the same as Omni, I don't know and don't care)
RGB-20 tokens
Taro tokens (in development)
Ordinal's BRC-20 (not the same as this BRC-20)
and I haven't even counted sidechains like Liquid and RSK. And now there's a new shiny thingy! Just imagine: tokens on Bitcoin! Wow!
Seriously though, who cares at this point. The token standard that's going to increase adoption is the one with a stablecoin on it, not NakaPepe ffs. As of now, Liquid wins with its USDT.
I don't think it has any impact on bitcoin, I just see it as a negative for people who dont know any better and think they getting some "cheaper" version of bitcoin with these tokens and will end up getting rugged
But hey people can do with their money as they please, as they trade this non-sense, mint it and move it around, they pay fees that go to miners and stackers who are willing to keep dca'ing so I guess all is well
Like a dev who writes malware that only infects Microsoft Edge on Linux. Sure, you can do it, but what's the point? And your talents could be used for something so much better.
Negative.
They drive up the price of including UTXOs into transactions, thus rendering small UTXOs unspendable. This limits the amount of people that can participate in Bitcoin.
They put unnecessary data into parts of transactions, increasing the average size of each block, which puts pressure on node running costs. The higher node running costs, the less nodes, and thus less distribution.
They annoy the hell out of people by making transaction fee prices less predictable.
My own rant: they don't need the world's most damn secure network to be secured. Let BTC focus on what's actually important: sound money.
They drive up the price of including UTXOs into transactions, thus rendering small UTXOs unspendable. This limits the amount of people that can participate in Bitcoin.