
An inscription refers to the practice of permanently recording data onto a blockchain via on-chain transactions. In the context of Bitcoin, an inscription involves binding a specific piece of content to a single satoshi—the smallest unit of Bitcoin—which is then recognized and displayed by off-chain tools.
You can think of inscriptions as “tagging each satoshi with a label and attaching a piece of content.” This content can be text, images, or other file fragments. While the blockchain ensures the record’s immutability, how the data is interpreted and displayed depends on wallets and indexers. In essence, inscriptions function as a combination of standardized conventions and on-chain proofs.
The inscription mechanism relies on embedding extra data into transactions, with agreed-upon rules assigning identifiers and ownership to satoshis, thereby associating each satoshi with specific content.
With Bitcoin’s Taproot upgrade, the “witness data” section of a transaction allows for more efficient storage of data fragments. Specialized tools then map these data chunks to particular satoshis based on agreed numbering schemes. As a result, what’s stored on-chain are raw data fragments, while off-chain indexers interpret and assemble them into readable assets or artworks.
Some may mention OP_RETURN (an output type for storing small amounts of data), but the mainstream inscription ecosystem relies more on witness data and indexers for greater capacity and flexibility. No smart contract logic is involved; instead, standardized text formats and parsing rules are used.
Inscriptions and Ordinals have a “method vs. tool” relationship. Ordinals are a set of rules and tools that define how to number each satoshi, track their movement, and enable the attachment of content to individual satoshis; inscriptions are the actual content records attached via this process.
Crucially, Ordinals numbering and parsing are “off-chain conventions” and are not part of Bitcoin’s consensus protocol. This means that different indexers might, in rare cases, interpret data slightly differently—highlighting compatibility challenges within the inscription ecosystem.
Inscriptions can be used to mint collectibles, artworks (image or text), or register information for token-like standards such as BRC-20 using text-based rules.
For example, artists can inscribe artwork fragments on-chain, which wallets then display as “image inscriptions.” Standards like BRC-20 use simple text fields to record details such as token name, total supply, and minting parameters; tools then read these fields to display balances and transaction histories. Well-known tokens like ORDI in the community are recognized and traded based on these rules.
To participate in inscriptions, you’ll need a Bitcoin wallet that supports Ordinals, some BTC, and access to a trusted inscription or minting service.
Step 1: Prepare an Address. Use a Bitcoin address compatible with Taproot (typically starting with “bc1p”), as most modern wallets require this format for displaying inscriptions.
Step 2: Fund Your Wallet. Purchase and deposit a small amount of BTC to cover miner fees for inscription transactions and any applicable service fees.
Step 3: Choose a Service. Select a reputable inscription platform or tool; decide whether to upload your own artwork (image/text) or participate in minting for a specific BRC-20 project.
Step 4: Initiate the Transaction. Submit your content or minting request, confirm fee settings and parameters, broadcast the transaction, and wait for block confirmation.
Step 5: Review and Manage. Use an Ordinals-compatible wallet or indexer to check that your inscription is displayed correctly. Record your transaction ID for future reference and verification.
On Gate, you can directly trade tokens related to the inscription ecosystem (such as the widely followed ORDI) by engaging with supported inscription asset markets or activities—lowering barriers to participation.
Key risks include:
Inscription assets depend primarily on “text-based rules plus indexer interpretation,” meaning their usability and security rest on community standards and tool implementation. By contrast, smart contract tokens (like ERC-20) are governed by on-chain code that enforces balances, transfers, and permissions automatically.
As a result, inscriptions offer less enforceability and constraint—they’re a model of “on-chain proof plus off-chain interpretation.” The advantage is low deployment barriers and compatibility with chains that do not support smart contracts; the tradeoff is a greater need for consistent standards, reliable tools, and awareness of potential interpretation differences.
Inscriptions typically involve larger data payloads than regular transactions, making their fees more sensitive to network congestion—and confirmation times may be longer.
According to public blockchain monitoring trends, periods of high activity (like mass minting events or popular artwork launches) can drive up miner fees and waiting times significantly. Conversely, during quieter periods, fees and delays decrease. Before participating, monitor mempool trends and fee recommendations; time your transactions strategically and set appropriate fees to balance cost and speed.
Looking ahead, inscriptions may expand across multiple blockchains with improved standards and more user-friendly tools. Ecosystems built around textual standards like BRC-20, ARC-20, or SRC-20 may adopt stricter constraints and more unified parsing methods—reducing discrepancies between tools.
Additionally, copyright provenance, regulatory compliance, and data storage methods will become focal points: questions about which content should be recorded on-chain, how to prove originality, and how to comply with legal frameworks will all influence ecosystem maturity and application scope.
The value of inscriptions lies in “low-barrier on-chain proof and asset registration”—ideal for collectibles, provenance tracking, or lightweight asset experimentation on blockchains without smart contract support. Their limitations stem from reliance on parsing tools, rule consistency, and higher sensitivity to congestion. Before participating, understand Ordinals and text standards; verify wallet and indexer compatibility; assess miner fees and expected confirmation times; then decide whether to trade related assets on Gate or mint them yourself. Effective position control and risk management are essential when exploring this emerging mechanism.
Both inscriptions and NFTs are digital assets on the blockchain—but their storage mechanisms differ. Inscriptions embed data directly onto the Bitcoin blockchain—much like etching onto stone—for permanent preservation. NFTs typically store only pointers on-chain while the actual data resides on off-chain servers. Put simply: inscriptions are more decentralized, with greater data security and permanence.
Inscriptions surged in popularity in 2023 due to the launch of the Ordinals protocol, which enabled everyday users to easily mint digital assets on Bitcoin. The buzz was amplified by Bitcoin’s upcoming halving cycle and capital within the crypto space searching for new opportunities. However, after initial hype there are significant risks—so assess carefully before participating.
Inscription transaction fees depend on Bitcoin network congestion—typically 10–20 times higher than standard Bitcoin transfers. At peak times a single inscription transaction can cost hundreds of yuan or more; during lulls it becomes cheaper. Trading tokenized inscription products on Gate helps avoid high on-chain fees for a more cost-effective experience.
To evaluate an inscription project’s reliability:
Whether inscriptions can be held long-term depends on each project’s development prospects. Some projects have lasting value (e.g., those led by established brands), but most are short-term speculation plays. When trading inscription-linked products on platforms like Gate, first understand the project’s ecosystem and use case—avoid blind accumulation, as you assume all risks.


