Topic: "Uncommon sat" purchased for 2 ETH (Read 333 times)

You're bumping a thread that's 1.5 years old, which isn't a crime, but all those categories didn't exist when I wrote it. That's why.

Besides, I would rather collect old tokens than old sats:

Spells of Genesis
Rare Pepes
BitGirls

Just more interesting IMO.

I made stuff that's even older than those, but I'm bad at marketing.

This is now the 5th "Uncommon Sat" purchased for 1 ETH in the past 24 hours as far as I can tell. Still another 5 available out of a theoretical total of over 786,380. I wonder at what point miners are going to start isolating their block rewards in order to start selling these sats. So far whether it's been a sat from 2016 or 2022 the value remains the same, available or bought.

Given how many uncommon sats there actually are, it'll be interesting to see what someone pays for a "rare sat". There are only 390 of them so far, so if people are paying 1 ETH for a sat that is 1 of 786,380, will they be paying 2000x more for a rare one? I doubt it as that sounds insane, I think more like someone would pay 50/100 ETH, and these "Uncommon Sats" eventually become worth 0.05 ETH, 0.1 ETH or less.

I say this as these "rare sats" as they are actually very rare compared to "uncommon sats", if you're into that sort of collectable. 1 of 390 is 2000x more rare than 1 of 786,380.

Just my take on it anyway. A "rare sat" auction would actually be quite interesting to see play out imo.

Another "Uncommon Sat" was purchased on OpenSea today, this time for 1 ETH.

A big difference is this one is the first sat of block #474717, which was mined in July 2017.

This is kind of an interesting infographic which the poster assigned as the image to their Emblem Vault NFT:



It is admittedly weird to me that ordering sats in the manner of Ordinals has created a value proposition out of thin air, but what matters more than my personal opinion is whether or not the broader market will decide "uncommon" and "rare" sats and so forth are legitimate collector's items.

Read the location of the sat in the Ordinals explorer. Its the tx hash of the UTXO in the address of the Emblem Vault.

As I mentioned previously its the first sat that was mined in block 781,463. To track where it goes, you just need to follow the first output each time it is spent, as sats move on a First In, First Out basis per Ordinals Theory.

Let's follow the sat from the block from which it was mined, with the output destination for each tx:

https://www.blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/1d6cee0a930e327eacf74fae751613665091f5ecead34317510593c861e446cd - 1CK6KHY6MHgYvmRQ4PAafKYDrg1ejbH1cE (block reward)
to
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/3d8bf3ff4137ba65da395e9d545eb53c230b58411f4289a3c2a037f2c64fa20b - 128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og
to
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/3d8bf3ff4137ba65da395e9d545eb53c230b58411f4289a3c2a037f2c64fa20b - 1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW
to
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/070812ee9cb49356b352eb760316872198a44b8f38e42ac66afef72ef946b4dd - 3M4B3JtH3dhWV3Ytoh6XzDrxeaSWtvaBnJ
to
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/03737c93d2996ebac8a5ba0a204df21ab430ca7cb4644144eeb6f11d19935de2 - 14UuoFXK89DEFqpAW9iYJ51o2N9PUFAVW5
to
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/8600a593c41e07154518fb6c317d4a9731cef88e308f2416fcd9cc6edc997e2c - bc1qm34lsc65zpw79lxes69zkqmk6ee3ewf0j77s3h
to
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/91eaa622721b52b16e8562c254c4401d0f04f73377dbb5ec4c073d22ea4e540e - bc1q3mcjmlgwvl422c5q73a97rqk0yf46z7eyvnnxn
to
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/87d946b8dcdd66aefa40fca3e53d1aa799b378e8c9eaac72fcc552a636515495 - bc1pzp0jt8ugvhwspz7m69aler76pjhupxq3hhp9nw66xk2w5crgpheqvr47k4
to
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/137fae16b5f47754ce4007d2ff5f251671f4c4485c57408390dfd0344a272311 - 1LmRqGW1vFzkNKqKShMN5FZwvi19xvwJKJ (current location)

your own post gave the descriptor of "uncommon"

thus defeating your own description of uncommon

remember your own post, here it is again

remember you said the example you gave was a "first sat" and thus was uncommon
here quoted again:

well its not the first sat. the example you gave was mid 8000sat of a spend that is not even the first spend(parent-child) of a blockreward as its instead a greater descendant

and yet. one other thing is, and this is important to understand

when a UTXO is spent.. BEFORE it is even gives the REMAINDER of the utxo to recipients. the mining pool firstly takes out the mining pools tx fee from that utxo.
yep recipients get the remainder (the change) after
the recipients are at the end of the process, the mining pools are before the recipients

(at the spending block the mining pool claim the fee first. becasue the rewards are at the top of the block)

thus all "first sats" go to pools. if you follow any logic/data flow science (which CODE is based on)

thus in logic and data flow.. the mining pool gets the first sat of all transactions and spends. whether rare or not

enjoy that entertaining thought

https://fox8.com/news/2-or-more-how-rarely-seen-bills-could-be-worth-beyond-their-printed-value/

That's like saying because dollars are fungible people can't collect rare bills. You can't dictate what people can or can't collect. Its not up to you, its up to the collector and the free market.


It doesn't have to be a first or last spend.


Provide proof. Anybody can conjecture anything, that doesn't make it so.

---

LOL hilarious, thanks Theymos. Your game was too difficult, I gave up after the 10th try.

This is just a sideshow circus for gullible people who don't understand value.

It'd be like selling cars for a lot more money than normal based on specific vin numbers lol.

It's just a way to separate fools from their money by branding satoshi identifiers as "collectibles".
It's trying to create a market based on zero value. A similar concept would be identifying satoshis that have been transacted the least number of times and trying to sell them for extra based on the arbitrariness of least transacted. Or like if Satoshi suddenly appeared and tried to sell all his bitcoin at $1 million per Bitcoin based on the idea that the bitcoin he mined are collector items lol.

Just convincing people that arbitrary valueless things have value and then parting them from their money. Con-artist stuff

I also think that it is just a marketing stunt.  I do think that the person who bought this one knows the person who is selling it.  They are creating a marketing trend somehow, I don't know how many wealthy people will fall under this scheme and take the bait. 


These people do have lots of money and don't mind spending just to create a brand trend.


Once they put it at a higher price, I think another related person will buy asap.  I don't know, I just feel that some group of wealthy people are creating some scenario here.  Maybe I am wrong or...

the game is simple

create a story, a narrative. then have 2 accounts
one selling a story. and one buying the story. in both sides its the same person. but now the story is published and seen as being sold.

years ago back in the early days of ebay. people were putting a regular UK 50p coin on ebay for £25 and saying its a special coin.. (real world its not)
the seller is also the buyer. thus it registers as "sold for £25"

the game is to then find an idiot to pay something between £0.51-£25.00 due to them seeing a "sold for" listing to make it appear that it must be worth upto £25

sellers usually say things like "im offering it half price for £12.50" where they try to convince idiots that they are getting 50% off when in reality they are paying 25x (2500%) more

but the important thing to remember
these listings of the first sell are the seller and the buyer being the same person thus no actual money win or loss in the listing happens in the real world bar a £0.20 listing fee

Shocking to say the least... I can't think of a reason somebody would want to buy that crap. Crazy m(b)illionaire? Clueless person who's not sure what he's buying? Reseller planning to sell later for more $$$? In any case, the next level of retardation... 

funny part (not cranky)

if you follow the taint back to a previous spend where the lock amount originated from.. its not the first or last spend.. its a middle spend of a previous spend

bc1q3m...vnnxn 10.99683698 BTC -> 1A13e...GaNsX 1.99322711 BTC
                                                        bc1pzp...r47k4 0.00010000 BTC
                                                        1A13e...GaNsX 9.00347784 BTC


the bc1q3m...vnnxn is then in the middle of a previous spend


bc1qm3...77s3h  13.25197239 BTC -> bc1qs...nv5xc 0.73617838 BTC
                                                         bc1qm3...77s3h 0.01630324 BTC
                                                         33D8q...uaPZN 0.00092000 BTC
                                                         18etWy...d91CL 0.00384421 BTC
                                                         bc1qm...y2wx3 0.11868190 BTC
                                                         ...
                                                         bc1q3m...vnnxn 10.98752181 BTC
                                                         ....

where it is spend number 17 of 40

meaning its not a first last or anything special of anything

i doubt anyone actually paid $3600 for under $3 of sats it is probably some promoter selling to himself to set a false price on a market history to pretend to set a sat value as being 1600x more then its worth hoping some other idiots will see it and pay more for a next scam becasue they beleive the first (scam) really happened as a genuine trade

Basically "Hey this is rare, let's agree guys that this is rare because this is how I found out *brings out a scroll full of convoluted jargon that no noob will be able to understand* so yeah you have to buy this thing now for 2 eth* Although in reality, I don't see this being any different from other types of collectible or important memorabilia like game jerseys, rare pairs of shoes, and what not. For sure people will see this as valuable and would probably jump in to see and buy this item for the most part, but at the same time since this is bought using Ethereum, I don't think a direct effect on the bitcoin economy will be into play after this. They only dabble with a few satoshis every now and then, plus add the fact that this is bought using a different crypto, and you'll get this.

People are really crazy to make collectible coins that are only worth $20, only to hear later that they have been sold for millions of dollars. Some would say that collectors are stupid or too addicted to owning special or rare coins. However, this phenomenon can be compared to the artworks of famous painters sold at auction for exorbitant amounts of money or items that belonged to famous football players, such as a t-shirt or shoes. Some people are willing to spend a lot of money to acquire these items.

I should have been more explicit in my description since you don't seem to understand the difference here.

The difference is that Bitcoin is fungible. Art is not fungible. Collectibles are not fungible. Even rare coins become not fungible by the fact that they are taken out of circulation and made rare. What we're seeing here is arbitrarily deciding certain $1 bills are worth more than other $1 bills because of the serial number. Nobody is collecting and paying extra for bills based on serial number. I mean people are free to decide that they value anything for any arbitrary reason, but that doesn't mean that value is worth it. This is literally someone pretending the serial number of a satoshi is worth a vast amount of money based on an arbitrary assignment of value by I believe the creator of Ordinals in order to sell his product to gullible people.

It's just sad.

I mean hey if someone wants to lock away 8000 satoshis forever at a high price in order to have 1 specific satoshi for an arbitrary reason, whatever, it takes 8000 Satoshis out of circulation and makes the circulating supply that tiny bit less for the rest of us. But it is sad people are this gullible. People this gullible are the reason why politicians/regulators think they need to make laws to prohibit people from using money however they want, and once politicians get that idea in their head they run the risk of getting in the way of people's lives for no reason.

I mean hell if someone told me a small gullible community of people arbitrarily values one of my satoshis for a lot more than its worth and they are dumb enough to pay me many thousands of satoshis for my single satoshi, I will happily take their money. That's just trade. It's just sad there are people that foolish/dumb/gullible and that they've found their way onto something as cool as Bitcoin. Altcoins and altcoin NFTs had been sucking up all the extremely gullible people in crypto, but now they are finding their way to Bitcoin but using it in the most gullible and silly way possible lol

You seem oblivious to the amount of "rare fiat coins" that are sold for much more than they worth, based on the fact they are uncommon. Even if a quick google search will tell you this. Note there are coins worth $20 that collectors will pay $20 million for, over 10 that are worth $500K. So in reality, why wouldn't there be satoshis worth up to 1 million x their actual worth (0.01 BTC)? In this case, probably a genesis block sat...

More relevantly you raise a very valid point, even if completely unintentional. Valuing certain coins at a higher value because they are rare is actually quite common... Whether you believe it's worth considerably more or not isn't relevant here, it's down to collectors to determine their value. Its just like art imo. There are pieces that cost $20, maybe even $200 to produce and they sell for millions... so go figure.

You can say art or collectables are worthless, and the collectors are fools, but there are many who make a living out of it is the reality - as many or not more who lose a lot of money as well.

lol. What's the saying, an idiot is born every day lol



This is like if someone paid $3600 for a two dollar bill just because its uncommon.

This is just a total farce. Some people reallllyyyyy don't understand what value is. NFTs seem to suck up the most gullible naive people and make them throw away their money - that seems to be the main use case of NFTs so far. I'm starting to wonder if NFT tech will ever start to do anything useful or if it'll remain as just a scammy con to separate fools from their money.


This is the kind of value-less stupidity that anti-crypto people can point to to try to show why they think its a scam. The NFT marketplace gives all of crypto a bad name.

$2.24 BTC sounds like 2.24 BTC to me instead of $2.24 worth of BTC.😏

That's the kind of hope and belief the buyer has before making such a purchase, or probably just for fun, as the OP has suggested. 
Have you taken the time to check through most of the hyped NFTs from the last year, which were sold for thousands to millions of dollars? What do you think their current value is now?

This is kind of wild, but also interesting, thanks for sharing. The bottom line is if there is the opportunity to make individual sats into collectables, then collectors will trade them, whether valuable or not!

Not convinced this makes satoshis de-fungified (non-fungible you mean?), because already each individual satoshi was already non-fungible as it isn't divisible. The only difference is some are apparently worth more than others. But if you wanted to spend this 1 satoshi (that was sold for 2 ETH), then you'd still be able to spend it as 1 satoshi. It's not like it's value has been altered or would be rejected in relation to Bitcoin.


Think about how many millions of "uncommon" sats were mined in 2009-2010, then you realise why they wouldn't be that uncommon, only old  

I came across the Tweet yesterday https://twitter.com/null_ish/status/1641277163847426049?t=RK-sSg-5NEE0eqjqQ6uS0Q&s=19
 I wanted to ask these same questions you asked, but on reading the tweet's comment, I saw what I already felt was a satisfying answer.


I think it should have had four unique ape or monkey designs, lol. 

[/quote]

I understand someone might have paid more for different sats, but this doesn't make bitcoin non fungible.

This guy created this system  , but we don't see different types and rarity levels of sats on exchanges. This is a very personal point of view of this person project. Or a small group