Interesting is that the record is also happening with relatively normal block time, we don't have a record of blocks in the last 24 hours, just 148 so far from times when we even had over 160 for two or three days one after other.

As for why this is happening, not so many are going to like the reason, it's again "spam" or how did they call it, a "terrorist" attack on bitcoin!
https://unisat.io/brc20/meme  

Yes I want to take a moment to thank all the mean cyber terrorists for helping bitcoin to break new records

Its funny that people have created a new shittoken standard for Bitcoin using Ordinals, all the more power to them I suppose.

Possibly my favorite piece of terrorism is this chess game built from scratch, simply stunning that the entire thing is only about 12.1 kb:

https://ordinals.com/inscription/d412d1aa997583ec5c558bee031291bac78f9f9a8acb2edccd2b6e19df64c9bbi0

Its a fully-functioning chess game, all you have to do is double-click a piece and then double-click where you want to move it. Apparently the opponent is at around Level 800!


TBH I didn't analyze it but I suspect it has to do with what Stompix mentioned.

I recently have seen a lot of normal people are interested in Bitcoin Ordinal. Can it have something to do with the increases number of transactions? There are a lot of invest in altcoin but suddenly I can see an interest at Bitcoin ordinal on them.

You are right. If Lightning Network is in full action, bitcoin on chain transactions will be decreased. The transactions in Lightning Network has nothing to do with on chain. Only transactions, happening at the time of opening channel and closing channel, will have record in the bitcoin blockchain.

Huh, that's really impressive, as it's not just the highest number of transactions, but also significantly more than the previous highest number of 490k at the end of 2017. I remember the fees of that time, though, which were around $25-30 per transaction if you want it confirmed within an hour or even a few hours. It seems that for the same waiting time the fees is currently around $2.5, so 10 times less. I'd say it's fantastic how much better things are now.
I don't know how I feel about the reason of the spike, but it doesn't seem to hurt Bitcoin, so I suppose it's not a bad innovation.

As far as the blockchain is concerned, transacty are very low. However, I think this is still a small percentage of the total. We can still see the development of the blockchain, so we should not see a sudden decrease in the number of transactions in the world of cryptocurrencies.

I kinda think this time it's a kind of pyrrhic victory though, mainly because of the fees you mentioned. Truth is, if we're not careful and people keep abusing BRC20 spam, then Bitcoin is going to be rivaling crappy ATMs in transaction fees.

Normally I would not have a problem with random meme tokens on the Bitcoin network, but as this is slowing the whole network to a crawl, there is some concern here.

I guess the common hope around here is that this BRC20 fad ends as quietly as it started and fees go back to semi-normal. But there is no guarantee that is happening, especially if exchanges follow through with implementing this hot garbage.

I'm also kinda bummed that BRC20 never turned out to be what I thought it was i.e. a protocol for Ordinals, and instead when you go to Twitter and look up its hashtag, you're immediately bombarded by "WAGMI" "this is the beginning" "we are going to be rich" type of posts about BRC20 meme tokens, which is going to fuel the maniac hysteria (and I can only imagine in horror what would happen if Elon rides this wave too, though it's not Doge at all so I guess we lucked out here).

the increase is due to spam
this last month we are seeing a new spam to break ordinal inscription counts.. so its spam attacking spam

the new spam set-up is requiring 3 transactions
1. to fund a UTXO of an amount to be wasted as a fee
2. wasting the funds as a fee to set up a zero sat utxo (one in one out)
3. another one in-one out to use the zero sat utxo to create a inscription to cause the miss count
yep point 3 transactions have no btc(sat) value ins and no btc(sat) value outs

recent stats show that 50% of a blocks tx's are the point 3 tx style. moving no btc. just publishing deadweight data

core devs and their corporate sponsors managed to scare miners to ignore blocks not flagging segwit in 2017. thus they managed to stop miners from making legacy blocks, thus producing the faked 100% allegiance of faked segwit desire
(100% is not natural in a decentralised world so you know the activation was manipulated.. check the data. its immutable and proves the point)

they actually can do the same in reverse, they can threaten a mandate date when their sponsored corporations (merchants/economic nodes) will reject blocks that use certain tx containing certain opcodes that have no pre-requisites.. you know the ones that allow junk data due to lack of rules

thus instead of softening consensus by allowing opcodes with not pre-requisite rules implied within. they instead could harden consensus by only allowing blocks that add transaction that use opcodes that have function/rules implied to them(like the good old days)

yep many years ago opcodes with no rules set were default rejected at relay. and the same can be re introduced again
thus when a new feature is wanted it actually does then require devs to publish what opcodes will do, their functions and requirements. and if deemed worthy then the new feature then becomes part of consensus rules. rather than letting any junk happen without a consensus vote

the thing is core devs can do it. they are just paid to stand back and let the spam crap happen.. which shows they dont care about bug fixing they just care about doing what they are paid to do or not do

yep there are fixes but core devs have been paid to moderate out discussion of fixes..
heck even luke jr proposed a fix but could not explain it in the core repo or add it as a bip to cores repo. so he had to offer it in his own client(knots) .. thats how bad core have got

core have lost their independence and care for the network, they only care about whatever their sponsors want them to do even if it makes the network more messy, cludgy, clogged up, expensive to transact

It would be funny, if all of this wanking from token lords does not cause the BTC price to go up significantly (+$1000-$2000 does not count).

That's because last I checked block time has nothing to do with number or transactions, or even MBs of transactions, it's purely to do with hash rate and mining difficulty. Increasing hash rate decreases the block-time, but then the difficulty adjusts every two weeks to effectively return the block time time to 10 minutes. Hash rate doesn't increase because there are more transactions either, as the block rewards remains the same, even if more transactions in the mempool means that miners get slightly higher rewards from the transaction fee, it's pretty negligible compared to the 6.25 BTC reward per block of transactions.