Topic: Runes will be worthless. Don't waste your precious BTC on huge fees. (Read 1124 times)

Good thing the hype mostly ended. Mempool.space also report there aren't many TX on mempool which contain arbitrary data.



Although some of them use fake pubkey on multisig rather than OP_RETURN or inscription, which suggest SRC-20 or similar protocol still used by some people.

A little update:

It seems the second Runes wave in late may/early June is now also over.

Runes transactions are declining (again), and that has led to much nicer transaction fees in the last week:


Source: Cryptokoryo

But also the prices of individual Runes tokens have been weak in the last week. While "Dog go to the moon", the most popular Rune token afaik, could hold its value approximately (but staying 40% below of its ATH in mid-May), most of the tokens listed on Coingecko went down 10% or more. GOB*IS...etc. and MEMERUNE are bouncing a bit but they are also significantly (40 to 70%) below their ATH in May or June.

Will there be a third wave? For sure. But I guess it will be even weaker than the last wave.

I'm the same as you, I'm agnostic because technically they're not breaking the consensus rules and they're paying the miners the fees required to have their transactions in the blockchain. Who am I to tell them to leave?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Although I'm just a mere pleb, I'm very happy with my Bitcoin savings. The amount of shitcoinery I'm willing to do will be mere $100.00 bets for fun, not something to lose my sanity over. I'm having enough of that in Bitcoin.

the ordinals and runes are not NFT. nor bitcoin standard. they just want to abuse branding to get instant fame from other projects, whilst all these runes and ordinals offer is scammery

true NFT are like unique serial numbers/hashes per unit whereby they are not mass produced such as hundreds of units per utxo
true NFT have unique features that offer the recipient unique things

the runes and ordinals are more like ICO scams.. not NFT

as for true NFT we have yet to see the real best case utility/possibility of them, but these scams of runes and ordinals are not even in the same league/sector/category of NFT potential

You're correct, in most cases I think NFTs have a similar bleak "value proposition". This applies mostly to "collections" of small images with no artistic value. But at least they're unique. And that makes me understand the NFT frenzy a little bit more than the BRC-20 and Runes frenzy. There are also NFTs I could consider "art". And there are other non-artistic NFTs which can accrue value in some cases when people charge these images with symbolism. I guess that's what explains the whole Pepe frenzy or perhaps also the "Bored Apes". Basically they are a bit like collectibles.

In the case of the BRC-20/Runes tokens, however, the only thing they have as an USP is the name. And there are potentially thousands or even millions of token units ("token satoshis"). In theory, if you own one unit of a token you already get the benefit of the USP. Basically owning many of these tokens is like "Yeah, I'm rich because I'm owning 5% of the name (of a particular protocol, on a particular chain)". Of course there is also some symbolism involved like in the case of memecoins, but the analogy with "real" collectibles becomes much harder to understand.

Of course this doesn't apply to Runes/Ordinals which do have some specific purpose, like an in-game currency, or a crowdfunding mechanism.

What would you say about NFTs from that perspective? It's almost the same thing right.
Yet there are so many people buying and selling it everyday.
People have literally paid millions to buy some random creepy image.
I was really shocked to see such dumb people paying such high amount of money for such shit images.

I cannot really be sure regarding how the topics could overlap in terms of how we might talk about the effects of runes and ordinals (inscriptions too) on bitcoin, and including potentially our own personal financial considerations that might involve how much that we might want to get involved or financially dabble in pump and dump baloney as compared with just building our BTC holdings and/or engaging in other practices to try to protect our BTC holdings during many times that there might be both ambiguities in the market but also congestion on the blockchain that might cause some of our UTXOs to either unspendable or uneconomical to spend.

On a personal level, I don't really have any problem with guys who are tempted to gamble in various ways, including if they might see some potential areas in which they might earn more money - yet we know with bitcoin people might end up getting deceived and distracted away from bitcoin, as the prize possession... so if there is such a great asset such as bitcoin itself, why add additional risks when you have nearly a sure bet (yeah, I know nothing is guaranteed, so we have to account for even bitcoin not being guaranteed either)...

I know for you personally (Wind_FURY), many times you have claimed to come from a kind of impoverished starting point, so then there is a bit of an implication that you are having to struggle to build the size of your BTC holdings, so perhaps you are not even close to being in a position to having enough (or more than enough) BTC, so your distraction into other ways to increase your BTC stash seem to be greedy rather than practical, so maybe my own punchline consideration would be regarding how much of your BTC are you willing to put at risk in either your diversion of BTC into gambling on runes, decentralized finances, ordinals/inscriptions or whatever other bullshit pump and dump nonsense that you are identifying to potentially be profitable?  If we are talking less than 10% of your BTC holdings (without cheating about it), then sure, that might be within the realm of reasonable in order to satisfy your urges to gamble and to try to get rich quicker than you otherwise would be able to with a more pure bitcoin approach.

Also, I am not really opposed to the idea of learning about something through putting some money into it, even if there might be a bit of a waste of time element to the whole matter, yet we still come down to putting limits on ourselves so that we do not get too diverted from actual wealth building and if you are claiming to having poverty-stricken circumstances, then you likely already realize that it can take 30-40 years in traditional investment scenarios to build wealth and potentially get to fuck you status (and many folks do not even get there after more than 40 years investing and doing all the right things in traditional investments). 

So, bitcoin potentially gives you a chance to actually get to meaningful and significant wealth building in perhaps less than half of the time as traditional investing 15-20 years and maybe even higher chances of actually getting to such a wealth-built status, so why fuck it up by potentially getting greedy and/or overly dabbling in shitcoins (runes etc) merely based on the fact that you might be feeling somewhat wealthy based on your already 8-ish years in bitcoin (congrats, I see that you just passed your 8 year anniversary on the forum - can't be claiming newbie status anymore.. hahahahahaha).

So.. yeah, even folks who had been modestly investing in bitcoin over the last 8-ish years might have made a lot of mistakes and still be feeling that they are doing somewhat well in terms of their own bitcoin investment performance levels.  This can happen with any investment in terms of the psychological components of a wealth effect that might contribute towards more spending, risk taking, withdrawal of capital and/or even temptations to diversify that might not be reasonable/necessary - while at the same time, it might be difficult to recognize and/or appreciate the value of sticking to the earlier course of action that would be to be continuing to stay focused on the prize (bitcoin in this case) and not getting lured into shiny objects that may well merely be serving as ways to separate you from the bitcoin you have so far built to date and also the bitcoin that you would continue to be able to build by remaining focused on ongoing accumulation of bitcoin rather than other "possible things that might (or might not) return more."

It's not only reasonable. It's at its lowest after Ordinals' release and its popularity among shitcoining circles. That was a very quick cycle of money coming from the "prey" to the "predators" with nothing technically new to show for. Plus the fees, the miners' cut, which speeds up the plebs' losses to the Shitcoinery Casino.

But to be frank, I'm tempted. It might be a golden opportunity for "traders" because there might be a narrative for "Bitcoin DeFi"  this cycle. I'm not good in trading though.

Just checked again, and got the same result as yesterday night.

I'm seeing several orders under the "Buy" tab. I interpret that the "Buy" tab does not show the buy orders, but instead sell orders for Runes you can buy. You can see at the right side that when you click on an order, you see a button which enables you to buy these Runes when you connect a wallet to this marketplace. So I'm sure these are sell orders.

While when I go to the "Sell" tab, then I only see the "waiting" animation and no orders appear. I'm interpreting thus that nobody placed a buy order, or publicly declared interest to buy.

Do you see the same thing or do you see lots of orders under "Sell" (which should be buy orders)?

There are no sell orders appearing at all on the latest Google Chrome. What the heck is going on?

I am apparently experiencing the opposite scenario as you. There are so many buy orders available but no sell orders.

So I'm guessing that either means that someone is busy pumping and dumping most of the Runes (I mean why wouldn't that happen, since only a few crypto bros use it anyway) or else there really is a dysfunctional market for these things.

I may reconsider my stance on that. If we can be sure that this script has basically no real use case apart from storing data, perhaps you're right and it would at least not be blocking any interesting contracts.

I wonder what the current standardness rules for Taproot scripts are in Bitcoin Core (apart from consensus rules specified in BIP-342). For P2SH there were (almost) no rules for some time, but that has changed with time. For Taproot all I can find is this handful of rules in the code (policy.cpp), related mostly to MAX_STANDARD_TAPSCRIPT_STACK_ITEM_SIZE, the control block and annexes. So the above proposed rule would be far more "detailed" and could be interpreted as "arbitrary heuristics".

There was also a proposal in the Ordinals community to store the inscriptions in the "signature annex" which was still open in February 2024. Would that also be prevented or would this be one of the methods which would lead to a bigger UTXO set? Still a bit skeptic, because if this is implemented the nonstandard rule would not bring any benefit.

Meanwhile, some Runes seems to have recovered from the recent crash and got double digit increases in the last 7 days. So I don't discard a second wave incoming. I believe it will be much "lighter" than the first one though.


Here, for example. For some reason I'm not able to see buy orders for the most popular one "Dog go to the Moon" or this one starting with "Z", only sell orders. That would confirm my prediction but it's of course also possible that the website or my browser doesn't work correctly.

Personally since I don't have enough bitcoin to move around I didn't feel much bordered apart from recieving my campaign payment which I use for investing gradually and since it's relatively small i just leave it on the exchange for some time before I send to my wallet.

But it's a surprise to see the big issue that had many threads discussing high tx fees and the effect of Runes and Ordinals shit die off without notice. Whatever was done to pull that shit out of bitcoin is highly appreciated.

I will admit that I thought that the fees would stay higher for longer, and perhaps with a bit of uncertainty for several months.. .but, yeah we are ONLY about a month out and fees have been pretty damned reasonable for about the last week or so..

Where Can I find the order book? Couldn't find anywhere 

I saw só many people saying that bitcoin feels would be forever high, and nft were going to dominate bitcoin blocks... it died so fast lol

In Brazil we call this "chicken fight". Ever saw a chicken flying? Lol

Casey Rodarmor described Runes as something like a serious protocol for memecoinery/shitcoinery because he was skeptical of "serious tokens". From my perspective if a person wants to do some shitcoinery on top of Bitcoin, then use the more efficient Runes, don't use BRC-20.


To store token data, but there's nothing technically wrong with that, no?

It's almost die, where some exchange (including Binance) already delist it. And such change will take some time, so it's possible BRC-20 will die or at least closer to die.


AFAIK there's no security risk. But why should it considered as standard, when the script itself never executed (due to OP_FALSE in the beginning)?

Finally, it was a matter of time before they become worthless, it's in our best interest that this has finally happened, I don't even think that runes have ever contributed anything to bitcoin besides the congestion of the network, hopefully we get to see more normal transaction fees and reasonable transaction fees now that runes are basically worthless. I still thank those people that have wasted their bitcoin though, some of them are doing something for the market of bitcoin so they still get some high five from me.

It's true what you're saying; most people who say this coin is shit or that coin is shitcoin are usually the ones who end up being humiliated. And what most people say is shitcoin and that your capital is dangerous in those coins; instead of decreasing, investors are increasing even more due to the intensity of the hype.

Therefore, these shitcoins that are highly hyped are usually the investors who are obsessed with them; they are the ones who get rich, and the others get it right when they suddenly lose the size of the income from meme coins, or shitcoins as they call them.

I'd like to add a point to this discussion, because I disagree a little bit with you both.

In general I think the use case to fund a company with a premined token, be it on Bitcoin (less recommendable, but I could see some reasons for Bitcoin-specific apps) or on Ethereum or whatever, is not bad per se. It's often hard for companies to get fresh money when they start, above all in parts of the world where loans are not easy to obtain, and the opportunity to create something similar to a "share" on a crypto platform can actually make sense. Above all of course for crypto-related projects, but not only for them.

Cryptocurrencies still are bad for handling the "lending" use case: If you lend BTC to someone and the BTC price spikes or takes a dip, then one of both parties will get an extra benefit. Thus "lending" is mainly a thing in DeFi protocols where people basically use that to leverage trading between different shitcoins, but you wouldn't use a BTC lending platform for a credit to build your house, or to fund your company.

Tokens, on the other hand, are one way to manage "lending" for projects, because this allows them to offer a "value" independent from the volatility of existing cryptocurrencies. Of course the "cleanest" way to do that is to create an utility token which can be traded 1=1 for a service they provide. But sometimes this is not possible in the early stages. But in general, I think this instrument can be handled in a correct way.

But of course @buwaytress you are right about the impression that several of these project searched for a problem what didnt't exist. And some of course were - and still are - outright scams. The challenge is of course: how can investors be protected from that? For some it's like gambling, I think those investing in meme tokens know exactly what they can lose. But some get scammed by projects which look "serious".

Perhaps some kind of "transparency standard" for serious token projects could be elaborated, e.g. with voluntary "quarterly reports", a "prospectus" and so on (no, a "roadmap" is not enough ). In some jurisdictions I know this is actually already mandatory for security tokens (including EU from July on), but I think projects from other countries should embrace this kind of transparency too.

It's great that bitcoin is in a way purifying itself of all that useless stuff.

I can't say I'm unhappy because the fees went back to normal and all the people who were overpaying hundreds of dollars to put ordinals or runes into the blockchain lost. I appreciate the effort but you guys lost and bitcoin won.

Nobody is going to miss ordinals and runes but people who thought they'd do money from it, just like nobody cares that NFTs are worthless but people who still own them.

So everyone that said "No" to ordinals was right?

Well not "right", but the siding with ordinals aged like milk I guess if you liked ordinals or supported them.

Only Runes I fuck with are Runescape lmfao.  

Sorry to everyone that got hurt or had their journey fucked up because of the get rich quick hype. Truly. 

<3

I saw through that right from the start -- and I think the majority of app developers did too. But you say an important complementary point to what I said about people manufacturing utility (by creating a solution and then searching for the problem) -- that they also completely lost the plot with Ethereum as a "supercomputer". I agree, they should have just used Ether (gas) to run everything. Their app itself would have made them money but no. They all sold a dream of tokens being traded for demand in whatever half-assed utility they thought up.

That really is all they care about (making money and exiting). Hey, I fell for some of them too.

The worst thing (well, not the worst but) is those suits and ties are now parading as Bitcoiners to sell their Runedinals...

I am really enjoying this... I was hoping this would happen, sometimes I think the only one who got something positive out of this is the creator of the runes... It still surprises me how people keep falling for these scams 

I would not be happy with such a direct blocking, but I think I made my point clear already in other threads.

Of course projects using BRC-20 could now simply switch to Runes (as they could have done before to platforms like OpenAssets, Counterparty, RGB ...). But I think it's better to simply let BRC-20 die alone. I don't discard there could be some waves still but judging from what we've seen in the past weeks since the halving they will be much smaller and do no harm.

Such a measure would be considered arbitrary if there was no technical reason other to block a standard some do not like. Include me of course among those that don't like BRC-20 , but I think Bitcoin never should target any standard, only real vulnerabilities. So I personally would only support such a "direct block" if the OP_FALSE / OP_IF -> OP_ENDIF combination is really technically dangerous, allowing really malicious scripts, but is that a thing in Bitcoin Script? (I'm not knowledgeable enough to answer this question, but IMO the harm which can be done only is related to that the script size limit can be circunvented).

AFAIK from what I have read in the developer mailing list they don't consider this script to be a "bug" which should be "fixed". Except Luke-Jr, of course, but I think with his datacarriersize method he implemented in Bitcoin Knots, he found a reasonable way for nodes to block Ordinals as "data transactions" if they don't want to relay them.

Possibly you're right. What I fear is however that with such a measure you could paradoxically help BRC-20 to keep alive; they could find a way to transact them with a method not including an Inscription. And those having created them in 2023 and early would feel rewarded to be in possession of such "rare" objects. It's only a bad feeling I have, of course it's not sure if this will happen.

For me personally, Runes as a technology isn't that stupid. In the OP I'm referring more to the model to create a token whose only value lies in having a "creative name" and which can then be "minted" by anyone.

But Runes can also be used for things that make more sense, of course, like as a game currency, or as a crowdfunding platform. However, it would not make so much sense to create this kind of currency on Bitcoin due to the fees. The "magic" of Runes is much related to the same (imo stupid) "value proposition" than in BRC-20: having a "valuable" token on the "OG" Bitcoin blockchain. Very much like a NFT, but in a minimally fungible way.

By the way, Runes could be probably transferred via LN if their protocol includes timelocks and hashlocks. I don't know the protocol in detail however. This is something which can be added but adds some complexity to the algorithm (basically they need either a hard-coded way to do those locks or an own "Script language").

The instigators for these things don't have a long-term interest, though.  It's a pump'n'dump.  They hype it up and then sell it ASAP.  Whether it's a bull or bear market, these things aren't designed to retain or increase their value over time.  Anyone still holding it after the initial pump is just a victim who hasn't learned anything yet.

I was thinking about making OP_FALSE OP_IF ... OP_ENDIF non-standard, since BRC-20 usually put data less than 100 bytes.


I think such hype wouldn't last long. And i don't see any problem with miner/pool including non-standard TX, assuming they charge premium cost for it. Miner would earn more money, while Ordinal create less spam.


I think you forget the fact Runes use OP_RETURN to store the arbitrary data, where OP_RETURN output usually isn't stored on full node UTXO set.

Reading the posts saying Runes are stupid.

Although absolutely true, at least Runes as a protocol for shitcoinery in Bitcoin is better for the blockchain than BRC-20. Runes data are stored directly in UTXOs which means they could be used in LN? Plus it won't be expanding the UTXO set like what Ordinals-based BRC-20 does. That's what many on-chain users want, no? For those spam transactions to be removed on-chain? I believe Runes is the technical development that could do it. The Lightning Network will be spammed though.

Runes and ordinals are the new meme coins, unfortunately some people are stupid enough to buy some and hold, thinking that if Bitcoin made a new all time high they will become rich, if I say that I am wondering who will buy from them it is a lie, when retailers start running back to the market they might start buying too because they are bunch of idiots, it was how we never believe that the past meme coins will gain attention but they did, some turn rich and some turned poor.

The way people are investing in these useless ideas is mind bothering, some people Soley care about meme coins only, since crypto is mostly about hype anything can happen, here is what I think, right now it is too early to say that runes and ordinals are done, some idiots will still come back and buy, but when this bear market is over many will end up with worthless inscriptions.

Let's see how things will go this time, I am expecting one more noise on runes and ordinals before they finally died and forgotten, it is a shame that many people will lose a ton of money because of this madness.

Couldn’t scammers lie about this as well? Even if they failed this time around to make the profits they were expecting, instead of giving up, they may lie about it, trying to create the image they were successful, to hype the next incarnation of this scam to gullible people.

After all, I would have guessed that by now most of those which have been around for a long time would know to recognize a scam by sight, but it seems I am wrong about that.

The solution altcoins provide is to try to make the creators rich quick.

The main problem is the tokens themselves. If Ethereum, for example, actually ran all its apps using Ethereum itself, rather than having thousands of different tokens - a different token for every app, plus entirely useless meme tokens, then these apps would have actually been judged and used on their merit. Instead the only reason people use any of these apps is to try to get rich quick on the pump and dumps of these random tokens.

Why would ANYONE want a different token for every different app they use?! lol. I don't want a different credit card or a different currency for every store I go to. That's where things got stupid with Crypto. But the reason was because that's how founders of these companies, or simply creators of these tokens, could get rich quick, and also fund their company. And that's all they cared about. Why create a business with market fit when instead you can create a business with a token and regardless of if your business succeeds, as long as you can get part of the crypto market to try out your token you can make many millions from selling the premine and continuing to own much of the supply.

The idea of tokenizing the world turned out to be as dumb as the idea of "blockchain, not bitcoin" that business suit types started trying to spread back in like 2018 lol. The right thing was always: Bitcoin, only Bitcoin.

There will be still a lot of snake oil, but my hope is that it wouldn't again concentrate on the Bitcoin chain, at least not on mainchain. Between 2014 (Counterparty/Omni wave) and 2023 (BRC-20 wave) there was a 9 year stretch where token projects weren't popular at all on the Bitcoin platform. And with good reasons: With the exception of a little extra security there is almost no reason not to use a blockchain like Ethereum or Solana - or even LTC or Doge - for a token project.

At least I wouldn't oppose thinking now about limiting the script size to the same value as for non-Taproot scripts.

A potential side effect however could be that the bigger Ordinals get more "rare" then as it would be difficult to create new ones. This could potentially generate another hype, although at least the blockchains wouldn't suffer that much because basically only transfers would happening. The problem is if miners cooperate with Ordinals firms, to launch even "more rare" collections.

I think you're too optimistic here still. Even relatively "well-made" altcoins lose often 90% in a "crypto-winter" style bear market. ORDI lost already 50%, in the middle of a bull market.

This is why it surprises me that we already see such a big decline. I seriously thought Runes hype would last a little longer. Of course they have not disappeared and still there is significant minting/etching, but the difference to BRC-20, where the initial wave didn't end until at least 6 months later is striking.

Thing with alts (and runes/ordinals really are just very poor versions of alts, themselves generally poor implementations of cryptocurrency) is they've always done things counter logical.

Bitcoin's utility lay in its solution to existing money problems. Altcoins utility lay in creating solutions, then searching for problems to fit into the solution.

Not to say there isn't past success in manufacturing utility. But these collectibility utility is getting really quite old.

Crypto tokens and NFTs and all that sort of stuff are generally worthless. These things only have worth is they have use. For 99% of this stuff the "use" is for the creator to try to market the thing to get rich quick. Once that is done the use is gone.

After people get burnt by this useless worthless stuff enough times they either leave the cryptocurrency space entirely or they realize that Bitcoin is the only thing they should be concerning themselves with. And of course I mean actual bitcoin, not random NFT data stuffed into a transaction of a single Sat or whatever.

Sentimentality has never had a place in ANY industry. Period. Full Stop.

You can make some money off of other peoples sentimentality and sell things to them based on that. But long term it will not work. And no business should ever base itself on it.'

-Dave

Sentimentality never had its place in this industry, and everytime someone tries to bank on this concept they fail horribly.

Ordinals tried it with their Inscriptions, NFTs tried it, only thing that really stuck around is the ethereum name service but only because it serves a purpose higher than its sentimental value. Runes are no different from the its predecessors, and it's no surprise it's fucking up quite royally nowadays. Projects like these is what further drives the agenda of Real World-Backed Assets and why I think it's going to become the next biggest narrative in this bull season.

The fact alone that these clowns think we're schmucks who would flock upon the next snake oil is just a massive insult to me, and I'm quite glad people are becoming more and more skeptical when it comes to these things, degens and ape-ing on a coin is still going to be a thing, but for the rest of us who want more out of the coin that we invested upon, RWA is going to be the answer.

the scrypt algo of ltc and doge is very profitable for mining and has been this way for almost 7 years in a row.

even pull away the false boost doge to  had 70 cents and you can still see that doge does well for mining.

That saying "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" is obviously not valid in the world of cryptocurrencies, and there is a high probability that we will see the next ordinal stupidity as soon as investors forget how "smart" they were with their investments the first two times. I hope that the developers will do something before that - let the children play in the playground, not in the place for adults.

If there are no urban legends about how someone got rich minting Runes, there is a high probability that they will stop there.
An obvious example was Dogecoin, where many people got rich from nothing, and later we would have a flood of meme tokens for almost every breed of dog. If there isn't much talk of big money on the tokenization of the Bitcoin network, that trend could end up in history.

And one month later they keep minting them, reminds me of gold miners digging for gold 100 years after the mine was depleted.



Interestingly enough the more the fees go down the more cheap it becomes for everyone to get some of these, creating an artificial floor, probably there are enough who didn't want or were unable financially to get in the first wave and now they are trying their luck when it becomes affordable to gamble with those on their value.


I think those grapes are a bit misleading, it would look like runes have gone 1% of their activity but when you check the percentage of tx or the numbers they still make 20% of them:




Of course, there will be a new thing, I doubt we won't have one in a few months, just give them time to unload completely this crap to users so they don't end up with unsold merchandise and they will invent the new big thing, if jpg monkeys sold that well what wound't sell?

Haha, yes BRC-20 is definitely lacking in terms of feature rich functionality, something that other protocols offer so I don't think BRC-20 will be around. I for one am very intruiged by the new coined term "Epic Sats" & also I think it is quite a fun development in the space drawing new attention & adoption towards bitcoin's cause. I think you can definitely partake in the fun now and make some sats if you do a little research & find some good projects to get into. Personally I like bitmaps I think the concept is cool and they seem to have a lot of application in their own way. I have yet to delve more into the runes protocol & project & see all the other side rune projects - there is still much to learn in this area.

Maybe it's time to make most/all Ordinals TX non-standard, since there'll be less people bother opposing to such idea.


With momentary high fee on mainnet and permanently increase cost/resource of running testnet3 node. Although i also must admit Rune offer less bloat than Ordinal.

When the bear season comes, is there any altcoin that doesn't drop in price miserably, or even disappear from the market? So don't be surprised if the BRC20 token disappears and is forgotten when bear season arrives. But the problem is that even if Rune and BRC disappear, developers will continue to create other tokens and network congestion will continue and get even worse if we don't have a solution. The core problem remains unresolved, so our joy at the disappearance of BRC or Rune is only temporary.

Just like the altcoin market, old altcoins will disappear and new altcoins will be created and the cycle continuously repeats, they will never disappear completely.

Even some temporary valueable ORDI and SATS will face with unwell future when Bitcoin bull run ends and bear market kicks off next several months.

Now, their ORDI and SATS enthusiasts still have time like months to enjoy their fun but it's can be starting time for them to think of what will happen next months, next year 2025 and make their plans to take profit, cut loss and exit these tokens, cut those tokens from their portfolios. Because in a next bear market that will last like 2 years, these tokens will lose likely more than 90% or 95% of its price.

Mempools are better recent days.
https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#BTC%20(default%20mempool),30d,weight

I hope I'm wrong about this, but something tells me it won't be long before the next incarnation of snake-oil is being hyped up by sleazy little grifters.  Fewer people seem to fall for it each time now, which is a positive, but the parasitic leeches seem determined to sell crap to gullible idiots.  I doubt this is the end.  They'll just come up with a new disguise for the same, old, worthless shit.

Well, I think we can almost be sure at this moment that Runes have killed Ordinals:


Source

And Runes are also declining fastly.


Source

Thus I've changed the title of the thread to adapt it to the current market situation

I think Casey Rodarmor did the Bitcoin community a big favour when he created Runes. My theory is that Runes simply caused more noise in the meme/token market, it was one competitor more in a field where already many platforms and token models, for example Solana meme tokens, had entered the space and competed heavily with BRC-20. This was fatal because the demand for the NFT/"uniquely named token"/memes model had already decreased. So they could create a short hype for the halving week, but later there was no way to sustain that.

Some BRC-20 tokens have still some value, like ORDI and SATS, but the big majority is being dumped into oblivion. I think they won't recover this time. Runes are doing even worse it seems (all those tracked by Coingecko have lost in the last 7 days, even in a time when Bitcoin was slightly bullish). They may get still one or another hype wave, but they are mucho less harmful to the Bitcoin mempool and I guess also the waves will be much less pronounced than 2023's Ordinals/BRC-20 waves.

Exactly. FULL tasks but not necessarily "original data". OP_RETURN in Bitcoin consensus rules means "everything behind that is irrelevant". So if something is irrelevant it should be outside of the scope of a fully validating node. That doesn't contradict that there may be other kinds of nodes which do see some "sense" in data stored behind OP_RETURN.

My thoughts on that were more related to the whole Bitcoin ecosystem, i.e. not only including miners but also the whole use case landscape. And the marginal benefits that miners are incentived to provide a little bit more security for some more weeks are imo outweighed by the negative impact on several user groups (not all - runes users are also users). If the incentives accelerate the creation of more and better L2s however (which solve the problem almost completely), then Runes are positive. This has to be confirmed though.

I think yes this is correct - Luke's Knots client correctly recognizes also Ordinals-type data (embedded in witnesses), but for Runes the normal Core option is enough because Runes uses OP_RETURN and Core's datacarriersize option restricts OP_RETURN size. See Luke's proposal here.

This is actually one thing where I think Luke is correct, this is the way to give nodes the ability to restrict data usage, not some hard-coded heuristics which have to be updated all the time. But the importance may be limited as most would use the default value which is 80 bytes, and allows Runes.

Unfortunately, if everybody used datacarriersize=0, then people would simply use mechanisms like Stampchain which are imo worse than Runes because they look like ordinary multisig transactions. And multisig has too many legit usecases to restrict it (LN, for example).

BTC>

If I am not mistaken, Luke Dashjr on Nostr or Twitter – I can’t remember now – said that as a practical solution for the Runes problem, we could use either BitcoinKnots or Bitcoin Core. Set ‘datacarriersize=0’ in your bitcoin.conf file or use the equivalent GUI option in Knots. I can’t find the Nostr post as I mentioned earlier, is that correct?

learn the word FULL or become a FOOL
pretending something is FULL when it doesnt do FULL tasks. doesnt mean its FULL

I'm talking about everything built on top of Bitcoin that has the potential to unlock those Bitcoins that are being HODLed in users' wallets. It's an opportunity for Bitcoin-only people to do some shitcoinery that's truly denominated in Bitcoin/without currency conversion.


From the standpoint of an user spending fees to "etch" or "mint" a rune which will never see a buyer, the money is wasted.

I still am unsure if it's positive or negative that Runes fees are delaying the effects of halving to miners. I tend towards the latter: the miner income drop will come eventually, so it's currently only delaying it, with the cost of people leaving Bitcoin (delaying adoption "as a currency") because the network is more expensive to use.