Original source: TechFlow Research
Original source: TechFlow Research
Original author: 0xmin
In mid-February this year, we made a special video about Ordinals and BTC NFT.
In the process of searching for relevant information, we found an interesting phenomenon, that is, the top group of Ordinals is actually a group of people from the original BSV community, although due to the decline of the entire BSV ecology, there are only a few people.
In the eyes of many BSV enthusiasts, both BTC NFT and Ordinals are something that the BSV community has been advocating before, and thanked Casey (the creator of Ordinals) on Twitter for being a Trojan horse.
The author watched the BSV Skull and Bones community for a while a few years ago, and indeed found that the two have similar approaches but the same results.
BSV was born out of BCH, and they all take the route of large blocks, but BSV is more radical, open to expansion, and advocates that there is no upper limit on the block size, which is determined by the market, and hopes to put more business data on the chain in the future.
Based on the blockchain system of Bitcoin SV, they proposed the concept of Metanet, which is a value network based on BSV, on which data transmission and storage can be performed, decentralized and cannot be tampered with, so that enterprises can also build on BSV application.
Based on BSV, some Skull and Bones members have developed on-chain Weibo and NFT-related applications.
In general, BSV and BTC have completely different routes. BTC’s benchmark is digital gold, and its core is value storage; BSV hopes that everything will be on the chain, and the single transaction fee must be low enough to make users feel indifferent. Therefore, it needs to continue to expand. The transactions are accumulated to maintain the smooth operation of the entire system.
Everyone knows what happened later. No BSV ecological application was used, and the data on the chain was bleak. In that crazy season for DeFi, NFT, and new public chains, BSV was gradually forgotten.
Today, BRC 20 is on fire, and the word BSV has come back to everyones field of vision again, because a large number of ecological applications of BRC 20 come from the original BSV community developers.
Behind Unisat, the core wallet of BRC 20, is the Chinese development team of the previous BSV ecology, which has developed Sensible Contract, a smart contract solution on BSV.
Behind the first BRC 20 trading platform Ordswap is the team that developed RelayX, the first decentralized trading platform on the BSV network. The founder was once an OKCoin executive.
Behind the wallet Ordinals Wallet is Twetch, a social application built on BSV. With the rise of the Ordinals protocol, Twetch also began to support BTC NFT.
In addition, including the commonly seen Mempool mining pool, its founder is also a core member of the BSV community.
The route and direction of BRC 20 seems to be what BSV enthusiasts support, and they can be regarded as using BRC 20 to get back on the stage and gain wealth.
However, this has also caused dissatisfaction among many Bitcoin supporters, especially Bitcoin maximalists. In their view, the current BRC 20 is currently an attack and harm to the BTC network.
Bear the brunt, BRC 20 has caused a large amount of blockage in the Bitcoin network, and it has been delayed for a long time. At the same time, when the Bitcoin service fee income continues to exceed the block reward, it may cause Time-Bandit Attacks (Time-Bandit Attacks), and miners will choose to process the service fee Transactions with higher transaction fees, while ignoring transactions with low handling fees or no handling fees, there will be situations where the transactions cannot be completed after they are sent.
Security practitioner Haotian believes that BRC 20 violates the mainstream narrative of decentralization, expansion, and low cost. The Bitcoin network has no way to prevent invalid inscriptions from being uploaded to the chain, and the centralized platform has to rule whose inscriptions are valid; The platform ruled that it is very easy to be double-spending. There is a logical paradox in the fomo mechanism of inscriptions first-come-first-served and the mechanism of miners’ priority packing according to the miner’s fee, which makes Mint unfair.
Ajian, a contributor to BTCStudy, believes that the purchase of Tokens (BRC 20 ) issued with these protocols should not continue, they cannot be called protocols at all.
Please stop buying Tokens issued using the Inscription method until the developers of these Tokens provide rules that allow client-side verification, otherwise what you buy is air without any protection. Developers, if you really care Your users, please imagine such a client authentication rule and implement such a client first.
However, the above are interpretations and judgments made by industry practitioners from a technical perspective. For most people, whether it is BTC/ETH mainstream currency, or altcoin, MEME/BRC 20, or model currency, as long as they can make money Thats fine, and I dont care too much about route disputes such as block expansion.
At present, BRC 20 is also another kind of MEME currency. The consensus is rising. The timing of entry and market sentiment are the most important. historical mission.
