Runes will be worthless. Don't waste your precious BTC on huge fees.

[HideYourKeys]

I really hope all this rune/ordinals stuff will be forgotten by next cycle

[d5000]

Even if today there was a new maximum of Runes transactions, there is somewhat good news: As of now, every day less new runes tokens are created ("etched"). So the current transactions are basically Runes which already exist but now people are minting them. Then there will be a new wave when they're trying to sell them.

While of course it was to expect that the halving block was the most popular one, it could have been expected that in the next days the "etching" activity was stable or even growing due to lower fees, but instead until now there's a steady decline.



Source: CryptoKoryo Runes Dashboard

Also, Ordinals seem to have died. Same will happen to Runes, the question is only "when"

DCG sold coindesk to NYSE ex president tom farley

You're correct. I'd forgot that. Corrected the post. Anyway it's now owned by an exchange business, and exchanges also benefit from these hypes.

[alani123]

Any "token" built on top of bitcoin's current on-chain infrastructure will eventually be worthless.
It's well established that these types of tokens are exploiting certain features that Taproot and SegWit have to upload data on the blockchain that wasn't meant to be there. It's fitting to the definition of a bug because this is very far from intended functionality.

If from a certain point on this gets addressed, transacting these types of "tokens" will be deprecated. Just having them sit on-chain without being able to move them would be very odd, but it's a realistic scenario. With more and more people getting fed up with transaction fees especially, core developers have also gotten up to the task of discussing to find a solution to this issue. Hopefully we see some resolution soon and the fools looking to upload PNGs on-chain will have to move on uploading their files to a shitcoin's "blockchain".

[d5000]

It's well established that these types of tokens are exploiting certain features that Taproot and SegWit have to upload data on the blockchain that wasn't meant to be there. It's fitting to the definition of a bug because this is very far from intended functionality.

In the case of Runes, this is not correct. Runes uses a quite old mechanism: OP_RETURN. It was introduced already by Satoshi, but made standard in v0.9 (in 2014) just to allow data to be stored in a way the rest of the users and nodes are affected the less possible.

Why was it introduced? Because in 2013/14, a lot of token and NFT mechanisms were created which used other techniques, like encoding the data in a fake public key. This is still possible, and in fact this is the way Stampchain SRC-20 and Doginals (on Dogecoin, which uses old Bitcoin code) work. In these olden days token systems like Mastercoin (now Omni) didn't create that much of a fee spike than Runes/Ordinals do nowadays. But the reason why it was seen as harmful is that it introduces UTXOs which will never be spent, and these UTXOs have to be kept in memory by the nodes.

Basically, devs realized that there was no way to prevent arbitrary data being stored on the blockchain. So they "legalized" a way which makes it less harmful. OP_RETURN outputs can be safely pruned by full nodes.

So technically, Runes is an "ok" technology, very much contrasting with BRC-20 which is harmful because of its inefficient mechanism leading to excessive bloat, and hopefully died now.

But the economic model of tokens which are first "etched" by somebody, then "minted" by anyone, and then should accrue some kind of value? That's really Fantasialand, worse than memecoins and other altcoin stuff, and that's why I'm making fun of those people here in the thread

Any "token" built on top of bitcoin's current on-chain infrastructure will eventually be worthless.

Here you could be right. At least there are already techniques being developed to validate the chain without having to store everything, and thus being able to provide a complete "full node" in a pruned state, deleting most of the data items/tokens on the chain. "Token lovers" would then have to reccur on archival nodes, which for several reasons (e.g. legal risk) will probably not be free to use. This should make the whole token business unviable in the long term, at least on Bitcoin.

[franky1]

Here you could be right. At least there are already techniques being developed to validate the chain without having to store everything, and thus being able to provide a complete "full node" in a pruned state, deleting most of the data items/tokens on the chain. "Token lovers" would then have to reccur on archival nodes, which for several reasons (e.g. legal risk) will probably not be free to use. This should make the whole token business unviable in the long term, at least on Bitcoin.

running a fool node is not a full node(they sound the same, but not the same)
once you start pruning/stripping data and not validating data you are not a full node, you are not part of the same security level of full node network of peers that offer true IBD to new full nodes nor are you able to then relay certain unconfirmed transactions as you are not validating full length data of transactions such as signing proofs after certain opcodes

but yes gmaxwell sees a future where actual full nodes are not a free offering/open source, but instead a SaaS people have to subscribe to
.. and their lays the rub.. core dev wanting to privatise full nodes and pretend the free(fool) version is "full" when its not

[satscraper]

why di they needs runes, when BTC itself is limited to 21 Million

every BTC that you own is rare

They launched RSICs - Rune Specific Inscription Circuits - that allows to mine runes. Those RSICs were distributed among particularly ardent ordinals fans.

The more of these RSICs a rune-miner has and the more transactions containing them will be included in one bitcoin  block, the greater the mining power of this miner, and therefore the greater the likelihood to mine the metablock relevant to those runes , the total number of which should not exceed 21,000,000,000, just like with Bitcoin.

That is why rune-miners have the  incentive in having  in the bitcoin  block as many  RSICs-containing-transactions as possible and increase fee rate allocated for such transactions.

The secondary market for these runes has already begun to form and reportedly the price for one RSIC is around 0.12BTC.  

 

[Wind_FURY]

Most of Runes will obviously die, and buying them today will absolutely be a very stupid financial decision. BUT, from a viewpoint of a user who wants to do his/her shitcoinery exclusively in Bitcoin, Runes might unlock a very LARGE amount of capital in the system - if they do it right. Bitcoin DeFi could be as big as Ethereum DeFi in my opinion.

There are builders that are bringing smart contract programmability on-chain, https://www.arch.network/

Plus for "wasting" our precious Bitcoins on huge fees, listen to OP. Plebs like us don't have enough capital for on-chain shitcoinery in Bitcoin. BUT for those users who decide to pay for huge fees, they are technically not wasted. They pay the miners to secure the network and to continue mining new Bitcoins to distribute in the system.

[d5000]

Bitcoin DeFi could be as big as Ethereum DeFi in my opinion.

If you think "Bitcoin DeFi" includes everything involving the currency "Bitcoin", then I can agree. So if you include tools like RGB/Taproot Assets, where some of the operations are taken off-chain, then I see a bright future for "Bitcoin DeFi".

But on-chain Bitcoin DeFi should be quite difficult, because Bitcoin's blocks are much more limited than Ethereum's, and thus the high fee problem will make many typical DeFi operations unfeasible. Some years ago, the Counterparty project intended to bring a extensive DeFi suite to Bitcoin but even the fees in 2016 (much lower than those today) were too high for an ecosystem to evolve, while Ethereum thrived. They had even planned Turing complete smart contracts (see here) but development stalled for a long time; more recently it seems to have made progress in this field again.

A "good" outcome could be that Runes people could develop a technology similar to OmniBolt using LN for Runes Transactions. But being aware that the Runes community is very much a spinoff of the Ordinals community and they were quite eager to put everything onchain, I doubt that.

BUT for those users who decide to pay for huge fees, they are technically not wasted. They pay the miners to secure the network and to continue mining new Bitcoins to distribute in the system.

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.

@satscraper: Seems to be an obvious move to delay the death of Ordinals with some circlejerk token distribution, like the "Runestone" Ordinal tokens (not to be confused with the Runestone Rune platform ...)

@franky1: A full node is every node hosting all the data necessary to validate Bitcoin transactions. It should not be necessary to host the "original" data.

[Wind_FURY]

Bitcoin DeFi could be as big as Ethereum DeFi in my opinion.

If you think "Bitcoin DeFi" includes everything involving the currency "Bitcoin", then I can agree. So if you include tools like RGB/Taproot Assets, where some of the operations are taken off-chain, then I see a bright future for "Bitcoin DeFi".

But on-chain Bitcoin DeFi should be quite difficult, because Bitcoin's blocks are much more limited than Ethereum's, and thus the high fee problem will make many typical DeFi operations unfeasible. Some years ago, the Counterparty project intended to bring a extensive DeFi suite to Bitcoin but even the fees in 2016 (much lower than those today) were too high for an ecosystem to evolve, while Ethereum thrived. They had even planned Turing complete smart contracts (see here) but development stalled for a long time; more recently it seems to have made progress in this field again.

A "good" outcome could be that Runes people could develop a technology similar to OmniBolt using LN for Runes Transactions. But being aware that the Runes community is very much a spinoff of the Ordinals community and they were quite eager to put everything onchain, I doubt that.

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.

BUT for those users who decide to pay for huge fees, they are technically not wasted. They pay the miners to secure the network and to continue mining new Bitcoins to distribute in the system.

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.

It's very annoying for plebs like me who want cheap on-chain transactions.

To zoom out and to think about it from the whole network's viewpoint, it's actually neutral. The network keeps chugging along block after block, no consensus rule is broken, and the fee market works.

Positive for the miners because they are incentivized with more fees.

[franky1]

@franky1: A full node is every node hosting all the data necessary to validate Bitcoin transactions. It should not be necessary to host the "original" data.

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

[B1-66ER]

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?

[d5000]

FULL tasks

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.

To zoom out and to think about it from the whole network's viewpoint, it's actually neutral. The network keeps chugging along block after block, no consensus rule is broken, and the fee market works.

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.

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 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).