Rune vs BRC20

[Wenbing]

This post will simply be about learning the difference between Rune and BRC20 bitcoin standards.

Based on my studies, Rune is a fungible token standard on the bitcoin blockchain. The standard is an improvement on the BRC20 which is more non-fungible than fungible.

What are the other key differences between Rune and BRC20? Are there more compelling cases for Rune as an innovative btc standard?

[franky1]

runes are not a BTC standard

runes and brc are junk data sold to scammed victims.
thats all that needs to be said

the creators are just scam creators. they create junk sell it and then a few months later create some new buzzword for new junk
they dont care about longevity of their creations as long as they make a some money from each iteration to profit and then fund the next buzzword iteration of the same crap scheme

[Churchillvv]

Is there really any need to keep learning about a scam that totally failed?

Runes are just distractions that came under bitcoin network and caused a lot of network congestion which pissed a lot of people off.

Some kind of thing that called itself standard which every one can create their own token with names that makes it look special and try to sell them out at the same time.
They are a whole bunch of shit that caused our attention sometimes time ago, no wonder it die off gradually.

I thought we are past discussions about this failed project?

[tbct_mt2]

What are the other key differences between Rune and BRC20? Are there more compelling cases for Rune as an innovative btc standard?

Both Ordinals and Runes are from altcoin developers who saw great chances to deploy their useless NFTs on Bitcoin blockchain by exploiting holes in Taproot. I don't consider they are Bitcoin developers and those projects like Ordinals, Runes are not projects that built for Bitcoin communities.

People who don't have experience, are greed enough, will be scammed by Ordinals and Runes, lose their bitcoins to purchase those useless NFTs and their native tokens as well as waste their bitcoins to mint those inscriptions.

After creating many shit forks like BCH, BSV and more, most are dead now, these scam developers found other ways to steal bitcoin from greed people. They want to get rich and the easy way to get rich is holding their bitcoins but they unfortunately choose to do a harder way, invest in Ordinals, Runes and will lose their bitcoins.

How many Bitcoin forks are there?

[Wenbing]

runes are not a BTC standard

runes and brc are junk data sold to scammed victims.
thats all that needs to be said

the creators are just scam creators. they create junk sell it and then a few months later create some new buzzword for new junk
they dont care about longevity of their creations as long as they make a some money from each iteration to profit and then fund the next buzzword iteration of the same crap scheme

Do you mean that NFT and fungible NFT standards are not innovations. I disagree with your position. Real value is being created by these innovations. It may not reflect in the short term but in the long term they will.

[benalexis12]

Rune and Brc20, for me, I don't like that; it's even perverted us, right? I don't see the essence of how it can help the crypto community, so it seems like only big investors are interested in it,
as far as I know.

Especially when there is congestion in the Bitcoin network, the size of the perversion of what is given to our communities in terms of bitcoin withdrawals increases.

[Wenbing]

Is there really any need to keep learning about a scam that totally failed?

Runes are just distractions that came under bitcoin network and caused a lot of network congestion which pissed a lot of people off.

Some kind of thing that called itself standard which every one can create their own token with names that makes it look special and try to sell them out at the same time.
They are a whole bunch of shit that caused our attention sometimes time ago, no wonder it die off gradually.

I thought we are past discussions about this failed project?

Innovations dont make sense at the onset. I believe there is more to this in the future than what we have today. An experiment that failed will be pivoted and it could turn out to be an advancement in bitcoin network.

[Churchillvv]

Is there really any need to keep learning about a scam that totally failed?

Runes are just distractions that came under bitcoin network and caused a lot of network congestion which pissed a lot of people off.

Some kind of thing that called itself standard which every one can create their own token with names that makes it look special and try to sell them out at the same time.
They are a whole bunch of shit that caused our attention sometimes time ago, no wonder it die off gradually.

I thought we are past discussions about this failed project?

Innovations dont make sense at the onset. I believe there is more to this in the future than what we have today. An experiment that failed will be pivoted and it could turn out to be an advancement in bitcoin network.

Casey Rodarmor is that you? An advancement in bitcoin network you said?

Maybe you're missing something here; here is an image of comparison which I obviously didn't see any reasonable evidence for creating the so called Runes if not for exploitation of people who are interested in the get rich quick scheme..


Certainly I can't decide for you what to love or think of the project. You can go ahead with what you think of it, it's not any of my business right!

[franky1]

runes are not a BTC standard

runes and brc are junk data sold to scammed victims.
thats all that needs to be said

the creators are just scam creators. they create junk sell it and then a few months later create some new buzzword for new junk
they dont care about longevity of their creations as long as they make a some money from each iteration to profit and then fund the next buzzword iteration of the same crap scheme

Do you mean that NFT and fungible NFT standards are not innovations. I disagree with your position. Real value is being created by these innovations. It may not reflect in the short term but in the long term they will.

they are not innovative nor creating real value.. they STEAL value.
but i feel your are more likely one of the scammers trying to promote this junk for your own greed or profit pretending they have value and are a "standard"..
shame on you for either greed, immorality or just ignorance

[pooya87]

Innovations dont make sense at the onset. I believe there is more to this in the future than what we have today. An experiment that failed will be pivoted and it could turn out to be an advancement in bitcoin network.

It is not even part of the bitcoin protocol to be able to turn into anything, now or in the future.

It is arbitrary data that is being pushed to the bitcoin blockchain. If we ignored the decentralized nature of the bitcoin blockchain, it is exactly like posting the same data on bitcointalk and calling your post a "token"!

A token is created using a smart contract and a smart contract has to be executed by the protocol and enforced by its consensus rules in the platform that it is being created on. This is exactly what happens in token creation platforms like ethereum.
It is not what is happening in bitcoin. Because for starters bitcoin smart contracts do not have that capability to create tokens and also it is literally raw data they're pushing in the transactions!

P.S. Unless you consider finding an exploit in a protocol "innovative" you can't use that word to describe the Ordinals Attack and by extension all the alternative names they use for that attack like Rune.

[legendbtc]

This post will simply be about learning the difference between Rune and BRC20 bitcoin standards.

Based on my studies, Rune is a fungible token standard on the bitcoin blockchain. The standard is an improvement on the BRC20 which is more non-fungible than fungible.

What are the other key differences between Rune and BRC20? Are there more compelling cases for Rune as an innovative btc standard?

BRC and Rune are said to be the two most hated tokens on this forum because they are the cause of bitcoin blockchain congestion as well as causing bitcoin transaction fees to increase too high. So I think you should research them yourself instead of asking people about them. Top altcoins like ETH are hardly welcome here, let alone these trash tokens. So I don't think you will find your answer, and if you are thinking of investing in them then you should be careful and I just want to advise you not to let that garbage take all your bitcoins before you realize that.

[pooya87]

BRC and Rune are said to be the two most hated tokens on this forum

They are not tokens, that's why they are "hated" as you put it. It's because people who are being told they are tokens are being lied to or being scammed and everyone hates scammers...

Top altcoins like ETH are hardly welcome here

Technically people don't have any problem with something like Ethereum for what it is. The problem is with what it is being advertised to be.
In other words the problem is when people are being lied to that ETH is decentralized, better than bitcoin (remember flippening?), has immutable blockchain, is secure, has cheaper fees that will never go up, ...

[tranthidung]

Technically people don't have any problem with something like Ethereum for what it is. The problem is with what it is being advertised to be.
In other words the problem is when people are being lied to that ETH is decentralized, better than bitcoin (remember flippening?), has immutable blockchain, is secure, has cheaper fees that will never go up, ...

Altcoin developers would prefer to say their coins are killers like Bitcoin killers, Ethereum killers but their coins don't kill Bitcoin or Ethereum but die with time.

How many cryptocurrencies have died? ^{The number of dead coins are bigger than 14,039.}

Over 50% of all cryptocurrencies have died. Of the over 24,000 cryptocurrencies listed on CoinGecko since 2014, 14,039 have died.

Flippening?

I recall that Ethereum never flipped Bitcoin in marketcap but there are some weeks media expected for that flippening and that's all. Months later, it's turn of Ripple to flip Ethereum but none of them can flip Bitcoin in marketcap and in price of a single coin.

It is around late of June 2017 when Bitcoin dominance is about 40% and Ethereum dominance is about 30%. 10% is not too small to make a flippening for Ethereum.
https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/