Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Allow burning inscriptions #1333

Open
casey opened this issue Jan 22, 2023 · 5 comments
Open

Allow burning inscriptions #1333

casey opened this issue Jan 22, 2023 · 5 comments

Comments

@casey
Copy link
Collaborator

casey commented Jan 22, 2023

It should be possible to burn inscriptions, to indicate that they can't be traded or transferred.

Add a subcommand ord wallet burn INSCRIPTION_ID which takes an inscrpition and sends it to an OP_RETURN. It should strip it down to the minimum size and return any postage to the user. Since the intention is to burn a sat, it the output size should be 1, not zero.

This should also allow including either an arbitrary UTF-8 string payload, or an arbitrary binary payload, and mark which one it is so they can be displayed correctly.

@batcavekid
Copy link
Contributor

Suggest confirmation step (eg. re-enter inscription string like deleting a GitHub repo). But, I guess that's interactive and thus bad for automation. Maybe ok without conf for CLI client...

@casey
Copy link
Collaborator Author

casey commented Jan 23, 2023

In general I don't think confirmation steps are a good idea for CLI tools. We let the user toast zillions of sats using --fee-rate 100 on a 1 meg inscriptions, or send 10 BTC, with no confirmation. For consistency, and to make sure that users don't expect a confirmation step when there is none, I don't think we should add any to the CLI.

@batcavekid
Copy link
Contributor

Makes sense, warning would be more useful in a gui.

@batcavekid
Copy link
Contributor

batcavekid commented Jan 26, 2023

Like burn idea.

Is "scrub" as an alternative to "burn" possible? Meaning, for a mutable inscription user would have 2 options:

  • burn
  • scrub

Particularly if it is a rare sat, user may want to clean the sat of inscriptions and keep it, or re-inscribe it, rather than burning.

If immutability is implemented later (eg. via burning the Collection (Prime) Sats), there would be no option to scrub subordinate sats, only burn them.

@raphjaph raphjaph added this to Tracker Sep 5, 2023
@raphjaph raphjaph moved this to Backlog in Tracker Sep 5, 2023
@casey casey removed the status in Tracker Feb 12, 2024
@casey casey moved this to To Do in Tracker Feb 12, 2024
@casey casey removed the status in Tracker Feb 12, 2024
@casey casey linked a pull request Feb 12, 2024 that will close this issue
@casey casey moved this to In Progress in Tracker Feb 12, 2024
@casey casey moved this from In Progress to Ready for Review in Tracker Feb 12, 2024
@casey casey removed the status in Tracker Feb 12, 2024
@onchainguy-btc
Copy link
Contributor

New burn PR = #3437

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants