I was [reading]( today about the popularity of BRC-20 tokens and the problems they may be causing for BTC as a whole. While BRC-20 tokens have attracted a lot of attention, they also seem to cause congestion, leading to increased fees and transaction delays.
IMO I feel like BRC-20 tokens might be doing more harm than good for Bitcoin. Not only are they causing network congestion and high fees, but they’re also leeching off Eth’s ERC-20 design without actually being the same. These projects require Bitcoin itself to mint rather than smart contracts.
I’m curious to know what you all think about this. Do you believe that BRC-20 tokens are bad for Bitcoin? Have you had any negative experiences with BRC-20 tokens? Should the OG Bitcoin community stay away from these projects as a whole? Is there any viability for Bitcoin projects or should we all stick to just Bitcoin itself?
Let me know what you guys think below, thanks!
17 thoughts on “How do we feel about BRC-20 Tokens, Better or Worse for BTC?”
I think it’s hilarious that for all the attacking they’ve done to Ethereum, the community then goes and borrows the ERC moniker even though they’re almost nothing alike.
The most important is not what we think about it, but how does it affect users and ecosystem.
1. Clogged BTC network is not good for users, but it’s good for miners, which kinda, thanks to higher fees won’t have to sell BTC that often. They were kicked quite hard during this bear market and if we are about to witness a long one, it’s good, that the engine of the system can profit on higher fees. Imagine, what would happen if prices would be that hard for mining companies to handle they wouldn’t be able to maintain it. Thus -> it’s good for network.
2. BTC can be withdrawn on Lightning Network. And this needs to explained in details, so people won’t make a big mistake.
Whenever you withdraw BTC from CEX to your Lightning Wallet CEX acquires your node’s id. This is bad for anonymity and Lightning Network is built on the great anonymous system. If you’re not familiar with it I very recommend you learn how does it work ([here](https://medium.com/coinmonks/bitcoin-lightning-network-explained-in-plain-english-cc9dea2c7e6)) and how does wallet work ([here](https://medium.com/coinmonks/bitcoin-lightning-network-wallet-set-up-e9dcd4ac4fbd)). There’s no blockchain, so no explorer. If used well you can maintain your anonymity at all time.
These are the most visible for now results. Additionally – if more people use LN more the capacity network will be able to maintain and so routing will be less limited, so also cheaper.
IMO BTC in coming years will be highly adaptable thanks to LN, so big exposure to it makes it only better for market participants as well as the market. Win – win
doesnt matter what we believe. not like u can stop it
I have the feeling that BRC-20 is going to force more people onto lightning network and more people will realize how lacking it is when they are finally forced to interact with it.
BRC-20 is apparently just an inferior way to implement tokens on bitcoin, [similar to SLP on BCH](https://old.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/13cyktl/whats_the_deal_with_btc20_and_ordinals_the/jjhw9ie/). so even if you could pretend like tokens belong on bitcoin, this really isn’t the way you should do it.
Not a fan of it. Wish people would stop.
But I’m a fan of people having an ability to do things.
It wasn’t built for this imo. Leave it to other chains like ETH and AVAX
I agree with Enrico from Mintlayer.
This is just a mess thats just putting the network in a bad spot.
IMO BRC20 is too complex for ordinary users and those tokens they’re trading don’t even act like ERC20 from Ethereum
Tbh I’m just surprised so many people bought into them, but then again anything that’s trending will be bought.
BRC-20 is terrible IMO, like you said they aren’t even minting on the platform, it’s going thru BTC which makes sense for the congestion.
Defi on Bitcoin is possible though, you can do it thru platforms like RSK or Mintlayer, ones that you can actually build upon rather than purchasing strictly for “the meme”
Dumb idea, devs just tying to make BTC into something else. BTC isn’t the most useful and adding these features so late in the game doesn’t help.
good for BTC. It increases BTCs usecase. Longterm I think, things like that will shift to a L2 solution like lightning.
Everyone whining “this is not my BTC”/”BTC wasnt made for this”…come on. This increases visability for BTC and solves a problem, that the miners get more fees from transactions. Is it unfun that the chain is somewhat clogged right now? yes, but probably doesnt stay that way foreever.
Is it shit that the transaction fees are sky high? yes, but really, get used to it. BTC Mainlayer isnt made for P2P transactions. It will become an expensive settlement layer. Better accept that sooner than later
Incorrectly asked question. Bitcoin is just first crypto experiment that is over. True Bitcoin is Monero. It has been designed from scratch to serve as a cryptocurrency by a strict definition: irreversible and fungible. Bitcoin is not fungible also has not adaptive block size. That leads to KYC censorship, transaction processing bottleneck and other fatalities incompatible with its usage as a cryptocurrency.
It’s a better for the whole ecosystem in general.
This kills btc. What a joke.
they’re clogging up the network with garbage coins, personally not a fan
First of all, Bitcoin must move forward. The transaction count decreased before BRC-20 became popular. I believe that the boost in transactions from BRC-20 is a good thing not a bad thing. If the transaction count remains too low, miners will feel discouraged and some may exit, leaving only larger miners, which would harm decentralization and hurt the value of BTC. The mining power of BTC is already too concentrated. So I think no matter what it leads, it is good for Bitcoin.
Worse, I can’t even begin to explain how this is a plague on crypto as a whole.
Looking for a reliable and secure way to store your value in the crypto world? STASIS EURO (EURS) is the answer you’ve been looking for.