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?

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..

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.

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)?

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."

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.

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.

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.