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.
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....
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?
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?
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.
hahahaha wtf
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
I asked the regime leader of Bitcoin and he said this statement was false
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....
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.
Possible explanation: https://nitter.net/mononautical/status/1663383996561072129?s=46
Oh! That makes sense! Pheww
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?
Indeed. More than likely this is an inscription service
yes. This is an inscription-on-demand service/wallet called unisat
Good explanation of what happened, involving the Unisat inscription service website.
view on twitter.comHilarious.
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?
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?
On wine myself too. Not the best shape to handle wallets :)
That's like 25-30 million USD on ordinal inscriptions
blog post is wrong.... unisat is not one entity... revealing that ppl would pump this falsehood
Imagine spending 1000+ bitcoin just to end up making Bitcoin stronger in the end. Bitcoin is so based & anti-fragile 🧡 ✊🏼
deleted by author