Ir al contenido

Fuentes de esta pagina

Cada afirmacion de esta pagina apunta a revisiones fijadas. Abra la ruta para leer la fuente exacta de la verificacion.

atomicals-electrumx-1.5.2.0

Atomicals ElectrumX

Revision v1.5.2.0 (2025-03-27)

Abrir ruta fijada: dftMintValidation

Version-sensitive ARC-20 and Atomicals validation behavior used as the pinned reference baseline.

atomicals-js-cli

Atomicals JavaScript CLI

Revision 1333565efbfe

Abrir ruta fijada: commandIndex

Reference command surface used for the documented CLI inventory and the visual asset provenance.

Decentralised mint claims

Raw

What makes a dmt claim valid, why a confirmed claim can still be worthless, and what a minter should check first.

Protocol behavior Verified 2026-08-31 Metadata & Sources

Describes the Atomicals protocol itself at the pinned reference revision. It does not promise that any product exposes it.

Page ID
protocol/arc20/decentralized-mint
Normative authority
Atomicals reference implementation
Networks
mainnet
Documentation version
2026.08
Audience
everyone, creator, developer
Owner
bitcoin-universe-docs
Sources
Known limitations
  • Claim validity depends on the state of the deployment at the height of the claim. A claim built against stale deployment state can confirm and still be invalid.

Esta página aún no está disponible en tu idioma.

A claim is the dmt operation. It mints exactly the deployment’s mint_amount into output zero, if every condition is satisfied.

yarn cli mint-dft <ticker>

Options from the generated inventory include --current, --initialowner, --funding, --satsbyte, --rbf, --disablechalk. See the CLI reference.

  1. The claim occurs at or after the deployment’s mint_height.
  2. The relevant commit and activation constraints are satisfied.
  3. The configured mint quota is not already exhausted.
  4. Any mint_bitworkc or mint_bitworkr requirement is met.
  5. Output zero carries exactly mint_amount satoshis.

Condition five is exact. Not at least, not approximately. Exactly.

Conditions one, three, and four are evaluated by the validator, not by Bitcoin. A claim that misses any of them still produces a confirmed Bitcoin transaction that cost a fee and minted nothing.

The most common case is condition three. In a contested mint, many claimants broadcast at once and the quota fills. Every claim after the last valid one is a confirmed transaction with no units.

Check Why
The ticker resolves to a verified winner Otherwise you are minting against a candidate
The deployment’s Atomical ID Names can be confusable. IDs are not
Claims already made against the quota To know whether any remain
The exact mint_amount Your output zero must match it exactly
The Bitwork requirement It comes from the deployment, not from you
Current fee rates Contested mints get expensive
  • The resolved Atomical ID next to the ticker.
  • Claims made against the maximum, with the height the figure was computed at.
  • The exact amount output zero will carry.
  • The Bitwork requirement, if any.
  • A clear statement that a confirmed transaction is not a successful mint.

Wait for confirmation, then for the index to reach that height, then read the result. A claim that looks successful in a mempool view can still lose the quota race. See confirmation and reorgs.