Jacwizard.eth

Web 3 Addict, CloneX holder

[Jacwizard.eth @jac3wizard]

@Henry13BTC unisats mint?

[Jacwizard.eth @jac3wizard]

Explored #NostrPad, a decentralized token launch platform based on the #BTCLightningNetwork, and I'm thrilled about its potential and vision! 🚀 #Blockchain #Decentralization #Innovation #Fintech

[Jacwizard.eth @jac3wizard]

@nostrpad good

#airdrop

[Jacwizard.eth @jac3wizard]

@nostrpad nostr is good

[Jacwizard.eth @jac3wizard]

@IkeNaMba Follow please

[Jacwizard.eth @jac3wizard]

@_gbolahann0 @mayy_rhee Follow please

[Jacwizard.eth @jac3wizard]

@DatEnclosure follow me please

[Jacwizard.eth @jac3wizard]

That time again for mutual gains 🤷‍♂️
Follow for immediate follow back 📷🙏

#follow #mutualfollow

[Jacwizard.eth @jac3wizard]

@BELIDA_ETH @jessyshen 先拿旅行签证去欧美国家，不用纳税

[Jacwizard.eth @jac3wizard]

@witthefanta 0x32B17F581ef333F4b9Fb6D19Ce87cCD17a2Db675

[Jacwizard.eth @jac3wizard]

@BitcoinIkuns bc1pjkavczysfc06epkm5hdckh9t3kxnzv3xqsmn2ksddp9p0y35xyaqnr8h85

[MEXC @MEXC]

🚨#MEXC new listings alert!

📈 $LADYS/USDT will list in the Assessment Zone at 05:30 on May 11 (UTC). @miladymemecoin

🔹Deposit: Opened
🔹Withdrawal: May 12, 05:30 (UTC)

Details: https://t.co/nRPTXINaXU

#MEXCGloal #MiladyMemeCoin

[McWhales 🐳 @mcwhalescalls]

You missed the opportunity to mint $Ordi, $Pepe and $Meme, but there are other #BRC20s that are at 1% minted now and when the fomo starts the supply will run out quickly.

IYKYK

[小隐新十年（Feng Wang） @wangfeng_0128]

Element将为我们社区用户开发支持Bitcoin Ordinals的 BRC20铭文代币及NFT交易市场，并陆续集成目前这个全新市场上主流钱包，包括Ordinals wallet和Unisat。

Bitcoin Ordinals协议已经带来了加密市场范式改变，未来可期。我个人判断，这个全新资产交易场景大概率会发生在去中心化平台上，而不是CEX。

[Jacwizard.eth @jac3wizard]

$ORDI now =$4.9 with 21 million supply & a market cap ～ $100 million.
imagine
1st: 10X - $50 hit the top 100 during the bull market, with a market cap of over $1 billion.
2nd: 100X - $500 hit the top 10 during the bull market, with a market cap of over $10 billion.

[Leonidas 🧡 $DOG @LeonidasNFT]

The TLDR on Inscription 3,492,721 That Maxis are Claiming "Broke Ordinals"

Somebody convinced a miner to include a wacky transaction that had no input or output.

This was an edge case that the ordinal indexer had not accounted for.

So what does the indexer do with a transaction where there is an inscription but no sat to inscribe on?

It ended up inscribing onto a sat from the transaction fee being paid to the miner so now the miner holds this inscription.

The reason this is weird is because you shouldn't be able to inscribe onto a sat that you do not own which is what happened in this case because technically the miner was the owner at the time of the inscription.

So did this "break ordinals" like the maxis seem to be celebrating about?

Not really.

Ordinal Theory is a FIFO accounting system that assigns a unique number to every sat. This is how ownership is tracked

Ordinal Theory is still rock solid.

This bug was in relation to whether the inscription should have been indexed or not.

In this case it was pretty clear that this inscription should not have been indexed yet it was which means it was given an inscription number.

Every inscription has a unique id which is how the indexer tracks it.

The ids of all existing and future inscription are still rock solid.

What was effected here was inscription numbers which at the end of the day are not core to the functionality of the protocol (ids are what actually matter) however there is no doubt that we love our inscription numbers and now there is a narrative out there claiming that every inscription after 3,492,720 is off by one.

Well I have new for the maxis. There has been debate about inscription numbers being off by a lot more than one for almost three months now.

There have been several other instances of edge cases coming up where people either make multiple inscriptions in a single transaction or do something else weird that brings into question the inscription numbering system.

At the end of the day because inscription numbers do not actually effect how the protocol works nothing about ordinals is broken except for this vanity tag of inscription number that we are so fond of. No money is lost. There is no provenance dispute. Ordinals continues to function as expected except there is just one more argument to be made that inscription numbers are even more off.

I'm personally of the belief that with all of these weird edge cases popping up around inscription numbering that we shouldn't retroactively change inscription numbers in an update.

If we want to patch the bug going forward we set a block number where the patch will take effect and from that point on when the given event occurs, inscription numbers will either be assigned or not assigned when the event takes place however the prior instances of the event will remain with the original inscription number (or without it if the bug was that an inscription was not included).

For these meta protocols ontop of Bitcoin I'm definitely leaning more in favor of the indexers being the source of truth. It's just not practical to retroactively go back and change every inscription number months after we discover a bug. Because inscription numbers aren't core to the protocol there is no real problem except we will have to get over the fact there was a bug that let certain inscriptions that shouldn't have been included included.

3,492,721 should live on as a valid inscription and potentially a very cool artifact, we can fix this bug for future instances of this event so that it can't happen again, and we can move on with our lives.

[Jacwizard.eth @jac3wizard]

@mcwhalescalls Let's go $ORDI !

[McWhales 🐳 @mcwhalescalls]

Time to eat this dip #BRC20.

-ORDI ----> 30$
-PEPE ---->2.50$
-MEME ---->400$

Prices around 2 weeks from now (almost)
I bet .10 BTC, if u want bet with me DM now 🎲