Table of Links Abstract and 1. Introduction 1.1 Research Questions and Contributions Related Work


Background


Inscriptions and ordinals
4.1 Operation Types
4.2 Comparison with NFTs and ERC-20s


Data Collection


Empirical Analysis and 6.1 Overall Transactions
6.2 Inscriptions Characterization
6.3 Inscription Trading
6.4 Impact on Gas Fees


Discussion


Conclusion and References 4 Inscriptions and ordinals Inscriptions and ordinals involve the recording of arbitrary data on the blockchain. On EVM-compatible chains, users encode hex data into the transaction input call data (refer to columns JSON in Table 1), usually also setting the transaction’s from and to attributes with the same user’s addresses. This structure constitutes a self-transfer made from a user to their own address. 4.1 Operation Types There are various protocol standards that define the structure of the inscription. BRC-20 was the first standard proposed for Bitcoin, and it includes three main types of operations: deploy, mint, and transfer, each encoded into a single transaction [36]. The protocol standards on EVM-compatible chains extend the set of operations, e.g., claim, list, buy, and sell. Deploy. The deploy action specifies the protocol name, token tick, total supply, and the maximum amount of tokens a user can mint (or claim) per transaction. Table 1 shows examples of inscriptions’ data recorded on-chain. For instance, to deploy an inscription, a transaction containing a deploy action should be recorded on-chain, marking the initiation of an inscription event. In the case of a zrc-20 sync inscription (see first row in Table 1), the protocol specifies a total supply of 21 million inscriptions and a limit of 4 tokens per transaction. Mint. After the transaction deploying the inscription is persisted to the chain, users can issue a mint action to actually mint (or in this case, claim ownership) of the tokens. To initiate this, users need to issue a transaction with an input call data encoded to HEX code, specifying the protocol and tick that jointly identify the inscription-based token. In the same transaction, users provide the number of tokens they want to claim (refer to column Limit in Table 1) that must be not higher than the maximum limit specified in deploy operation for the given protocol-tick pair. The off-chain indexer is responsible for assuring the integrity of inscription-based tokens. Claim. Similarly to mint, it allows users to mint and claim ownership of a new inscription token. This operation is used, for example, within the layer2-20 standard to mint a new inscription token, $L2. The $L2 token is a multi-layer2 inscription token that its inscription creator allows to be minted on multiple blockchains. However, there is just one deploy operation that defines the token’s maximum supply. The off-chain indexer maintained by the creator is responsible for ensuring the integrity of data in these circumstances. Transfer. Once users successfully mint the inscriptions, they can transfer ownership of their inscription tokens to another address. To do so, they typically issue a transaction to another address and add the data formatting standard of a transfer to the input call data. The receiving address will then possess ownership of these inscriptions. The inscription token is also identified by a protocol standard and a token name (tick). Tokens with the same names (ticks) can be deployed multiple times using various protocol standards. List. It enables users to list their inscriptions on marketplaces [9, 16, 44, 8]. Users specify the quantity of tokens and their price (in Ether) that they are willing to receive in exchange for their inscriptions from interested buyers. Buy. This operation is used to purchase inscription tokens from marketplaces. It references the transaction that listed the inscription on the marketplace. The buy operation specifies only protocol standards, as the token name (tick), amount, and price are declared in the list operation. Sell. It is used for selling inscriptions, this operation specifies the protocols and the order message containing seller and signer details, as well as the amount of tokens being sold and their prices. 4.2 Comparison with NFTs and ERC-20s In this section, we discuss the distinctions between inscriptions and established Ethereum Request for Comment (ERC) standards such as ERC-20 [10] and ERC-721 [11] concerning tokens and NFTs, respectively. Comparison with NFTs. In the Ethereum blockchain, non-fungible tokens (NFTs) [35] are created through smart contracts. Each user receives a unique token ID, affirming their ownership of a specific asset. These assets, which can be JPEG files or CryptoPunk images, are stored off-chain on a server or on the InterPlanetary File System (IPFS) [17]. In contrast to NFTs, inscription-based tokens do not rely on any smart-contract and, thus, do not allow upgrades. The link to the asset file is inscribed into the transaction data. In a blockchain with a maximal native token supply, such as Bitcoin, the amount of inscription is bound by the blockchain network limits. In contrast, NFTs based on smart-contracts lack such limitations, theoretically allowing for unlimited minting. Also, each inscription is allocated a position in the blockchain, which creates the opportunity to derive the additional value of the inscription from the location within the block. ***Comparison with ERC-20. ***The other application of inscriptions is to create ERC-20- style tokens. As inscription-based tokens are not reliant on smart-contracts, they are not susceptible to the risk of smart-contract upgrades, and their maximal circulating supply is declared once in the deploy operation. The minting and transfer of each new inscription-based token can be tracked directly on the blockchain and cannot be altered. However, due to their lack of smart-contract support, inscription-based tokens offer limited functionality. They are primarily utilized for speculative purposes and fall into the category of meme-coins [36]. Based on the inscription technology, it is possible to mint a single NFT-style token or a group of tokens with a predefined token supply in circulation. Nevertheless, it is the off-chain indexer, managed by the token’s creator, responsible for ensuring the data integrity of minted tokens. Trading of inscription-based tokens predominantly occurs within inscriptions marketplaces since they are not compatible with the ERC-20 standard required by decentralized exchanges [40]. Authors:
(1) Johnnatan Messias, Matter Labs;
(2) Krzysztof Gogol, Matter Labs, University of Zurich;
(3) Maria Inês, Silva Matter Labs;
(4) Benjamin Livshits, Matter Labs, Imperial College London. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. Table of Links Abstract and 1. Introduction Abstract and 1. Introduction 1.1 Research Questions and Contributions 1.1 Research Questions and Contributions Related Work Background Inscriptions and ordinals
4.1 Operation Types
4.2 Comparison with NFTs and ERC-20s Data Collection Empirical Analysis and 6.1 Overall Transactions
6.2 Inscriptions Characterization
6.3 Inscription Trading
6.4 Impact on Gas Fees Discussion Conclusion and References Related Work Related Work Related Work Background Background Background Inscriptions and ordinals 4.1 Operation Types 4.2 Comparison with NFTs and ERC-20s Inscriptions and ordinals Inscriptions and ordinals 4.1 Operation Types 4.1 Operation Types 4.2 Comparison with NFTs and ERC-20s 4.2 Comparison with NFTs and ERC-20s Data Collection Data Collection Data Collection Empirical Analysis and 6.1 Overall Transactions 6.2 Inscriptions Characterization 6.3 Inscription Trading 6.4 Impact on Gas Fees Empirical Analysis and 6.1 Overall Transactions Empirical Analysis and 6.1 Overall Transactions 6.2 Inscriptions Characterization 6.2 Inscriptions Characterization 6.3 Inscription Trading 6.3 Inscription Trading 6.4 Impact on Gas Fees 6.4 Impact on Gas Fees Discussion Discussion Discussion Conclusion and References Conclusion and References Conclusion and References 4 Inscriptions and ordinals Inscriptions and ordinals involve the recording of arbitrary data on the blockchain. On EVM-compatible chains, users encode hex data into the transaction input call data (refer to columns JSON in Table 1), usually also setting the transaction’s from and to attributes with the same user’s addresses. This structure constitutes a self-transfer made from a user to their own address. from to 4.1 Operation Types There are various protocol standards that define the structure of the inscription. BRC-20 was the first standard proposed for Bitcoin, and it includes three main types of operations: deploy , mint , and transfer , each encoded into a single transaction [36]. The protocol standards on EVM-compatible chains extend the set of operations, e.g., claim , list , buy , and sell . BRC-20 deploy mint transfer claim list buy sell Deploy . The deploy action specifies the protocol name, token tick, total supply, and the maximum amount of tokens a user can mint (or claim) per transaction. Table 1 shows examples of inscriptions’ data recorded on-chain. For instance, to deploy an inscription, a transaction containing a deploy action should be recorded on-chain, marking the initiation of an inscription event. In the case of a zrc-20 sync inscription (see first row in Table 1), the protocol specifies a total supply of 21 million inscriptions and a limit of 4 tokens per transaction. Deploy Deploy deploy Mint . After the transaction deploying the inscription is persisted to the chain, users can issue a mint action to actually mint (or in this case, claim ownership) of the tokens. To initiate this, users need to issue a transaction with an input call data encoded to HEX code, specifying the protocol and tick that jointly identify the inscription-based token. In the same transaction, users provide the number of tokens they want to claim (refer to column Limit in Table 1) that must be not higher than the maximum limit specified in deploy operation for the given protocol-tick pair. The off-chain indexer is responsible for assuring the integrity of inscription-based tokens. Mint Mint Claim . Similarly to mint, it allows users to mint and claim ownership of a new inscription token. This operation is used, for example, within the layer2-20 standard to mint a new inscription token, $L2. The $L2 token is a multi-layer2 inscription token that its inscription creator allows to be minted on multiple blockchains. However, there is just one deploy operation that defines the token’s maximum supply. The off-chain indexer maintained by the creator is responsible for ensuring the integrity of data in these circumstances. Claim Claim Transfer . Once users successfully mint the inscriptions, they can transfer ownership of their inscription tokens to another address. To do so, they typically issue a transaction to another address and add the data formatting standard of a transfer to the input call data. The receiving address will then possess ownership of these inscriptions. The inscription token is also identified by a protocol standard and a token name (tick). Tokens with the same names (ticks) can be deployed multiple times using various protocol standards. Transfer Transfer List . It enables users to list their inscriptions on marketplaces [9, 16, 44, 8]. Users specify the quantity of tokens and their price (in Ether) that they are willing to receive in exchange for their inscriptions from interested buyers. List List Buy . This operation is used to purchase inscription tokens from marketplaces. It references the transaction that listed the inscription on the marketplace. The buy operation specifies only protocol standards, as the token name (tick), amount, and price are declared in the list operation. Buy Buy Sell . It is used for selling inscriptions, this operation specifies the protocols and the order message containing seller and signer details, as well as the amount of tokens being sold and their prices. Sell Sell 4.2 Comparison with NFTs and ERC-20s In this section, we discuss the distinctions between inscriptions and established Ethereum Request for Comment (ERC) standards such as ERC-20 [10] and ERC-721 [11] concerning tokens and NFTs, respectively. Ethereum Request for Comment (ERC) Comparison with NFTs. In the Ethereum blockchain, non-fungible tokens (NFTs) [35] are created through smart contracts. Each user receives a unique token ID, affirming their ownership of a specific asset. These assets, which can be JPEG files or CryptoPunk images, are stored off-chain on a server or on the InterPlanetary File System (IPFS) [17]. Comparison with NFTs. Comparison with NFTs. In contrast to NFTs, inscription-based tokens do not rely on any smart-contract and, thus, do not allow upgrades. The link to the asset file is inscribed into the transaction data. In a blockchain with a maximal native token supply, such as Bitcoin, the amount of inscription is bound by the blockchain network limits. In contrast, NFTs based on smart-contracts lack such limitations, theoretically allowing for unlimited minting. Also, each inscription is allocated a position in the blockchain, which creates the opportunity to derive the additional value of the inscription from the location within the block. ***Comparison with ERC-20. ***The other application of inscriptions is to create ERC-20- style tokens. As inscription-based tokens are not reliant on smart-contracts, they are not susceptible to the risk of smart-contract upgrades, and their maximal circulating supply is declared once in the deploy operation. The minting and transfer of each new inscription-based token can be tracked directly on the blockchain and cannot be altered. However, due to their lack of smart-contract support, inscription-based tokens offer limited functionality. They are primarily utilized for speculative purposes and fall into the category of meme-coins [36]. Based on the inscription technology, it is possible to mint a single NFT-style token or a group of tokens with a predefined token supply in circulation. Nevertheless, it is the off-chain indexer, managed by the token’s creator, responsible for ensuring the data integrity of minted tokens. Trading of inscription-based tokens predominantly occurs within inscriptions marketplaces since they are not compatible with the ERC-20 standard required by decentralized exchanges [40]. Authors: (1) Johnnatan Messias, Matter Labs; (2) Krzysztof Gogol, Matter Labs, University of Zurich; (3) Maria Inês, Silva Matter Labs; (4) Benjamin Livshits, Matter Labs, Imperial College London. Authors : Authors (1) Johnnatan Messias, Matter Labs; (2) Krzysztof Gogol, Matter Labs, University of Zurich; (3) Maria Inês, Silva Matter Labs; (4) Benjamin Livshits, Matter Labs, Imperial College London. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv available on arxiv

Part of HackerNoon's growing list of open-source research papers, promoting free access to academic material.

How We Collected Data on Blockchain Inscriptions Across Multiple Platforms

Layer-1 vs Layer-2 Solutions: How Blockchain Networks Scale Without Sacrificing Security

EScholar Technologies

Too Long; Didn't Read

CTA: Download the FREE AI Productivity Shift report

How Inscriptions Work on EVM Chains

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Untitled Story

Why Ethics Fail in Open Source Communities

Exploring Yonatan Sompolinsky's blockDAG Protocols

How to Pay Less Gas for L1-to-L2 Transfers on Ethereum: An Overview of Practical Solutions

The Approach and the Solution to the Blockchain Trilemma

The Blockchain Trilemma: Could Layer 0 Be the Solution for Mass Adoption

Why Ethics Fail in Open Source Communities

Exploring Yonatan Sompolinsky's blockDAG Protocols

How to Pay Less Gas for L1-to-L2 Transfers on Ethereum: An Overview of Practical Solutions

The Approach and the Solution to the Blockchain Trilemma

The Blockchain Trilemma: Could Layer 0 Be the Solution for Mass Adoption

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps