[brc-20] Proposal for Issuance and Burn Enhancements, BRC20 - IP 1

General
21

By your own argument then, we shouldn’t be making any changes. The entire point of updates is to force the indexers to allow new use cases for brc20s. I still do not see any reason, nor any valid argument FOR going to 5 tickers.

I understand brc is different from TAP, the only thing that separates them visually is the tickers length. 4 ticks = brc20, anything more or less is probably tap. By changing to 4 and 5 tickers on brc it would be throwing the equilibrium out of balance imo.

Can you present a reason WHY we should allow 5 byte tickers? Your argument for indexing ease is moot since just the proposal itself to allow, at minimum, the self_mint function forces the indexers to update no matter what.

1 Like
22

Proposals are made by the brc-20 maintainers. The following process is undertaken to adjudicate and implement the proposals:

2 Likes
23

Read my post carefully again, or Watch The Video I made Check my bio.

I rest my Pen :fountain_pen:

1 Like
24

I want to raise concerns on following stuffs.

PROPOSED BLOCK ACTIVATION HEIGHT: 837090*

We don’t agree to have activation height before we have clear and transparent Consensus process displayed to the Bitcoin Eco builders.

“Consensus process”
Please make it public and let us know how exactly does this “Consensus process” work?
Who has the right to vote, when to vote and where to vote?

If anyone agrees on my concerns, please like this reply and spread.

1 Like
25

I encourage you to read about L1F Purpose | Layer1 Foundation.

Discourse is great place to start with discussion, I would suggest you to make post about the concern of Consensus, because there are many ways to think of Consensus.

There is ordinals is self, and there are protocols, Each one is quite different. You could add indexers too !

Also see Domo massage

1 Like
26

Can you just help me to understand this:
How exactly does this “Consensus process” work?
Who has the right to vote, when to vote and where to vote?

1 Like
27

sure, Check this https://twitter.com/L1Fxyz/status/1767189830419591197

1 Like
28

Do you mean that no one can vote for BRC20 protocol except for the following people?
@hirosystems
@ALEXLabBTC
@OylDynamics
@AlliumLabs
@UTXOmgmt
@unisat_wallet
@bestinslotxyz

So the “Consensus process” will only allow certain group of people to join and vote?
What about the communities and Bitcoin eco contributors ???

1 Like
29

We are getting into another topic which is Consensus, not the right place for here. So I highly recommend making another post and starting discussion.

But will say this Again, there are many ways to think of Consensus, Ordinal is self dont have clear Consensus !

There are many layers into this problem and you seem have no idea ~ I rest my pen :fountain_pen:

1 Like
30

2 clarifications have been appended to the proposal.

1 Like
31

will these deployer tools like UniSat support this OP at block 837090?

1 Like
32

yes, most of them are and the rest probably will follow ~

1 Like
33

Update added to the docs:

2 Likes
34

This update has been implemented as of block height 837090. The updated docs can be found here: Documentation | Layer1 Foundation

1 Like
35

Hi.
Concerning Open Mint issuance, I would like to receive clarity on changing from an initial Self_Mint deployment to Open. Or will the deployed ticker be hardcoded to the original setting?
Thanks!

1 Like
36

ahh, you asking if they going to open 5 ticker for everyone to mint.

is that going to impact self_mints. ?

Of course NO change.

if they going to make changes on brc20 ordi, they will have to make new proposal and give it few weeks for review.

2 Likes
37

Hi domo, is there a timeline for public mint of 5 digit tickers ?

1 Like