its a scam look at the bare blockchain data of transactions that contake junk json crap. use logic, math, economics.
you will soon learn that there is no proof of transfer in regards to brc-20 nor their predecessor meme junk.
All you need to do is look at the bare blockchain data to see the transfers happening after you familiarize yourself with Ordinals Theory. The proof of transfer happens in the transfer of individual satoshis. Its actually more blockchain-based than any other bitcoin tokenization protocol since colored coins.
Transfers happen every day, nobody has a problem with how it works except for you, and that's because you refuse to learn how it works. Do some research and educate yourself before responding.
the THEORY is just that THEORY, in practice it proves nothing hence why it remains THEORY
to prove something to no longer be just a theory you have to look at data outside of the scope of the theory to see if the end result still matches the theory. you also have to retest the theory in a different scenario to see if the theory still fits the results (yep ordinals already has a counting error and many other things that debunk the theory)
when you append a meme/json as meta data at the end of a tx.. guess what it has no association with any input or output. its not part of the txdata that forms the TXID
the decision/proof/immutable lock pairing of junk to output is not in the blockdata.. its done at flimsy GUI decision of a project managers explorer(a decision he can change anytime he wants)
EG
bc1pNuttyMcDumDum 0.0002 -> bc1pNuttyvictimA 0.00019600
bc1pNuttyMcDimWhit 0.0002 bc1pNuttyvictimb 0.00019600
signed NuttyMcDumDum
signed NuttyMcDimWhit
meme/jsondata: elephant
that elephant has not made any decision of if it belonged to victim A or B, nor if its part of dumdum or dimwhit.. if you look at the block data.
heck its not even signed into the form of the txdata that forms the TXID nor appended to the end of an output. thus has no association
also
if say dimwhit has a special rare sat from block 750,001 reward meaning (if we follow the theory) if you count sats victim B has it as its in position 20001 of the spending amount (first sat of second input)..
however if you look at BITCOIN ECONOMICS
the FEE is deducted first and the remainder is then spent, by assigning the remainder to destinations
by which 800 sats are removed first from a spend. meaning the 'first sat of dimwit' is in position
19201 not 20001 which puts it into victim A (thus changes the destination theory)
if say DumDum had a first sat. then that first sat goes straight back to the pool as part of the fee thats first deducted from the inputs. where the remainder 801th-39200th sat then goes to the destinations
.. but with all that explained about first sat stuff..
the metadata meme junk appended to the end of a transaction has not chosen a output or what relevant sat is relevant to attach to.
for instance
there are less than 800k rare sats (you only get 1 rare sat per block and block height is under 800k) and so
with over 12million inscriptions.. hardly any are following the "rare sat" theory
here is another conundrum for you
what if dimWhits utxo was a first sat of block 750,001 but dumdum was a first sat of block 730,000
where by dumdum has a rarer sat because its the first sat of 19m circulation
yea.. the junk data does not have any linkage or decision or connection to which 'sat' it appends to.. and the ordinals explorer can change which it chooses to DISPLAY in the explorer.
a true proof of transfer should contain the logic within the transaction data, not sat outside the txdata which forms the TXID, also the logic should not be changed after confirmation(yet ordinals theory can change).
the logic should be in the blockdata not some GUI that can change any time it likes..
EG next year they decide 'last sat' is important because all first sats end up going to fee's (once they realise bitcoin economics) thus changing the explorers 'theory' ends up changing GUI representation(without immutable proof) to a different output. thus proving a break in all logic, theory, trust
