Behind BRC-20: The "Revenge Plan" Planned by the BSV Community
The roadmap and direction of BRC20 seem to be supported by BSV enthusiasts, who have also managed to take the stage again and gain wealth through BRC20.Produced by: TechFlow Research
Written by: 0xmin
In mid-February this year, we specifically produced a video about Ordinals and BTC NFTs.
During the process of searching for relevant information, we discovered an interesting phenomenon: the most enthusiastic supporters of Ordinals are actually a group of former BSV community members, although their numbers have dwindled due to the overall decline of the BSV ecosystem.
For many BSV enthusiasts, both BTC NFTs and Ordinals are things that the BSV community has long advocated for, and they have expressed gratitude on Twitter to Casey (the creator of Ordinals) for becoming a Trojan horse.
A few years ago, I observed the BSV Skull Society for a while and indeed found similarities between the two.
BSV evolved from BCH, both following the large block approach, but BSV is more radical, advocating for unlimited block sizes determined by the market, and hopes to put more commercial data on-chain in the future.
Based on the Bitcoin SV blockchain system, they proposed the concept of Metanet, which is a value network based on BSV that allows for data transmission and storage, decentralized and tamper-proof, enabling enterprises to build applications on BSV.
Based on BSV, members of the Skull Society developed on-chain microblogging and NFT-related applications.
Overall, BSV and BTC have completely different paths; BTC is positioned as digital gold, with a core focus on value storage; BSV aims for everything to be on-chain, with transaction fees low enough to be negligible for users, thus requiring continuous expansion to maintain the stable operation of the entire system through massive transactions.
As we all know, later events showed that there were no applications in the BSV ecosystem being utilized, and on-chain data was dismal. In that season of frenzy for DeFi, NFTs, and new public chains, BSV gradually faded from memory.
Now, with the rise of BRC20, the term BSV has once again come back into the public eye, as many of the ecological applications of BRC20 come from former BSV community developers.
The core wallet of BRC20, Unisat, is backed by a Chinese development team from the previous BSV ecosystem, which developed the smart contract solution Sensible Contract on BSV.
The first BRC20 trading platform, Ordswap, is backed by a team that previously developed the first decentralized trading platform on the BSV network, RelayX, and its founder was a former executive at OKCoin.
The wallet Ordinals Wallet is backed by Twetch, a social application built on BSV, which has begun to support BTC NFTs with the rise of the Ordinals protocol.
Additionally, the well-known Mempool mining pool has a founder who is also a core member of the BSV community and has become a winner in the BRC20 wave.
The direction and path of BRC20 seem to align with what BSV enthusiasts support; they have effectively used BRC20 to regain the spotlight and achieve wealth.
However, this has also sparked dissatisfaction among many Bitcoin supporters, especially maximalists. In their view, the current BRC20 is an attack and harm to the BTC network.
First and foremost, BRC20 has caused significant congestion in the Bitcoin network, delaying block production. Furthermore, if Bitcoin's transaction fee revenue continues to exceed block rewards, it could lead to time-bandit attacks, where miners choose to process transactions with higher fees while ignoring those with lower or no fees, resulting in transactions being sent but not completed.
Security practitioner Haotian believes that BRC20 violates the mainstream narrative of decentralization, scalability, and low cost. The Bitcoin network cannot prevent invalid inscriptions from being recorded on-chain, and centralized platforms must determine which inscriptions are valid; moreover, if its transaction scenarios lack centralized platform adjudication, they are easily susceptible to double-spending. The first-come-first-served FOMO mechanism for inscriptions and the miners' priority to package based on fees create a logical paradox, leading to unfair Minting.
BTCStudy contributor Ajian believes that one should not continue to purchase tokens issued using these "protocols" (BRC20), as they cannot be considered protocols at all.
"Please stop buying tokens issued using the Inscription method until these token developers provide rules that allow client verification; otherwise, what you are buying is just air and offers no protection. Developers, if you truly care about your users, please first envision such client verification rules and implement such a client."
However, the above are interpretations and judgments from industry practitioners from a technical perspective. For most people, whether it’s mainstream coins like BTC/ETH, altcoins, MEME/BRC20, or model coins, as long as they can make money, they are not too concerned about the route disputes over block expansion.
Currently, BRC20 also belongs to another type of MEME coin, where consensus is driven by price increases, and the timing of entry and market sentiment are most important. Some people always make a fortune, while others get stuck at high positions, achieving a significant historical task of wealth redistribution within the circle.
If we talk about speculative advice with the nature of "zero or become rich," there is only one: stay curious and don’t be lazy.
