Rethinking behind the Craze: 8 Misconceptions of In_script_ion Debates

[TL；DR]:

The development of Bitcoin inions is booming, and our understanding of it also needs dynamic correction to avoid falling into various cognitive traps.

“Carving” on Bitcoin is neither the latest form of token distribution nor pure MEME hype, which is actually a unique Renaissance in the cryptocurrency industry.

The craze for Bitcoin inions does not necessarily mean continuous or non-stop growth. Investing in inions should be within one’s means, and what is important is DYOR.

Introduction

In the exploration of the crypto digital world, new things are constantly emerging, accompanied by many controversies and innovations, and inions that have been popular since last year are also inevitable.

In fact, we have discussed inions multiple times in our blog, but overall, anyone’s views on new things may need to be dynamically adjusted. This is like a blind man touching an elephant, and each of us may only be able to touch the tip of an iceberg at the beginning.

In the past six months, we have witnessed various perspectives and interpretations triggered by the new field of inions, as if everyone only touched on one leg or long nose of an elephant.

But as the year 2024 approaches, the popularity of inions has finally begun to slow down. We can also re-examine the many changes that inions and their infrastructure have brought to the crypto market, and we can have a clearer and more comprehensive understanding of many misconceptions or disagreements.

Misconception 1: Inion is a New Token Distribution Method

Some people view inions as a new way of distributing tokens, but this perception is actually a misconception. In fact, the concept of “inscribing” has already existed in the blockchain field, and some mining pools even provide related engraving services.

As early as 2011, artists utilized the characteristics of Bitcoin trading to convert text into ASCII art forms and attach them to transaction information, which was permanently retained on the blockchain.

One of the works pays tribute to the deceased early Bitcoin developer Len Sassaman and then Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, but these digital artworks cannot be owned and traded, so they did not become popular in the Bitcoin eco.

Source: public data

After blockchain networks such as Ethereum and Solana pushed NFTs to the public, “carving” on Bitcoin has gradually emerged in recent times, which can actually be considered a Renaissance.

Misconception 2: Inion is a Short-term Hype by MEME Capital

Many people view inions as a short-term hype tool for MEME capital, and this viewpoint does capture some of the truth about the cyclical fluctuations of web3.

But what we also need to see is that many inion tokens have moved away from the early pure MEME form and have been empowered with more crypto cases, such as TURT, MUBI, RDEX, and many other tokens used as protocol tokens for the BRC20 project.

Misconception 3: Inion is a Historical Regression

Some people believe that inions are outdated technology, but in fact, this is also a misconception. For Bitcoin mainchains without smart contracts, the issuance of inions does indeed require the use of variants of BRC-20 or similar protocols.

For smart contract public chains, issuing inions in the form of inions is indeed a technological setback.

But this does not mean that the inion is outdated technology, after all, technology is used to serve the community, and the popularity of the inion has indeed driven the eco development potential of Bitcoin, a large gold mine.

And as we mentioned above, inscribing text on the Bitcoin chain is not a new thing, it was limited to the considerable conditions at the time. This attempt was only a superficial one, and now the new conditions have reignited this operation.

So, rather than saying it’s a regression, it’s more like the Renaissance movement.

Misconception 4: Inion is the Same as NFT

Inions and NFTs are two different forms of digital assets that differ significantly in multiple aspects.

Firstly, Bitcoin Inion is a technology based on the Bitcoin blockchain that embeds information into Bitcoin transactions and records it on the blockchain. NFTs, on the other hand, are digital assets based on blockchain networks such as Ethereum, representing unique digital content or value.

Secondly, the characteristic of Bitcoin inions is that they are completely on chain, and information is directly written into the blockchain. NFT, on the other hand, achieves the uniqueness and proof of ownership of digital assets through smart contracts.

Bitcoin Inion is a type of inion that can be understood as a physical form of information engraved on the Bitcoin blockchain. NFT, on the other hand, is a virtual digital asset whose value depends on the uniqueness and scarcity of digital content.

Finally, Bitcoin inions typically cannot achieve an open blind box effect and are static, while NFTs can achieve dynamic proof of stake and trading mechanisms through smart contracts.

Source: cryptotimes.io

Overall, there are differences between Bitcoin inions and NFTs in terms of technical foundations, application scenarios, and characteristics, but both have unique identifiers and proof of ownership, which can represent a certain asset or value.

Misconception 5: Inion is a Vulnerability that Undermines the Decentralization of the Bitcoin Network

Critics argue that the inion utilizes the characteristics of the OP_IF block and OP_PUSH operator to disguise data as Bitcoin program data, thereby bypassing the datacarriersize limitation. The inion does not use OP_RETURN, without being constrained by datacarriersize, which means that node operators and miners have a certain degree of control over the total size of the data they wish to relay and include in the block.

The inion also cleverly utilizes the features of segwit v1 (witness discount) and v2/taprot (no arbitrary size limit). It should be noted that Bitcoin was not originally intended for storing data, so any approach that makes Bitcoin easy to relay data should be considered a potential issue.

Bitcoin core developer Luke’s Bitcoin Knots provided some options to combat this so-called junk data, but in fact, on January 8th, Luke Dashjr’s Github proposal to restrict inions was voted down.

Source: github

Misconception 6: Inion is a Counterattack of BTC Eco Against ETH Eco

The BRC-20 protocol token of the BTC eco is more popular among retail investors compared to various NFTs in the previous bull market, as the former pursues Fair to Mint. This fair and open token issuance method is more in line with the spirit of decentralization than the private pricing of NFTs by institutions. This can be seen as a resistance to the VC and institution led Ethereum eco.

In other words, this is progress rather than counterattack.

Misconception 7: If Bitcoin Core Decides to Ban the Trading of Inions, the Inions will be Completely Unable for Trading

The answer is not so absolute.

Considering the diversity of Bitcoin Core clients, especially those who are still using older versions, the trading power of inions will not immediately disappear. Currently, there are approximately 17000 Bitcoin Core clients in use, of which 9000 are versions 24-25 and the other 5000 are versions 21-23. This means that even with the addition of rules prohibiting the misuse of blockspace in version 27, the old version can still function properly.

Therefore, as long as you are patient and wait until the old version of the Core blocks out, the inions still have the ability to continue their trading activities. Of course, miners have a tendency to upgrade to the latest version. If everyone gradually upgrades over time, the usability of the inions may be severely impacted.

In summary, whether inions can continue to be traded largely depends on whether miners and node operators are willing to continue supporting older versions of the client. If most people choose to upgrade to a new version, the future of the inions may become uncertain.

Misconception 8: Inion is an Innovative Form that will Become the Focus of Value Investment in This Bull Market

Innovation does not mean continuous growth, and when the eco is too prosperous, it may also face deep adjustments. What is important is DYOR, rather than FOMO or FUD driving investment decisions, which applies not only to the field of inions, but also to other sectors.