コンテンツにスキップ

このページのソース

このページの主張はすべて固定されたリビジョンに紐づいています。検証元のソースを正確に確認できます。

atomicals-electrumx-1.5.2.0

Atomicals ElectrumX

リビジョン v1.5.2.0 (2025-03-27)

固定パスを開く: mintParser

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

universe-index-atomicals-nfts-and-realms

Universe Atomicals NFT, Realm, and Subrealm index

リビジョン 1d9109c68d95

固定パスを開く: provenance

Materialized read model for plain NFTs, Realms, and Subrealms projected from Atomicals ElectrumX.

Indexer and validator dependency

Raw

Why every Atomicals answer is version scoped, and how to handle two sources that disagree.

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/core/indexer-dependency
Normative authority
Atomicals reference implementation
Networks
mainnet
Documentation version
2026.08
Audience
developer, operator, integrator
Owner
bitcoin-universe-docs
Sources
Known limitations
  • Two sources agreeing does not prove either is right. It proves they share an interpretation.

このコンテンツはまだ日本語訳がありません。

Bitcoin does not know what an Atomical is. Every Atomicals answer comes from software that reads blocks and applies rules. That software has a version, a network, a chain position, and a set of active rules.

Scope Why it matters
Validator revision Decides how the transaction is interpreted
Network Decides which activation conditions apply
Block height Decides which rules were active for that transaction
Generation Decides which consistent snapshot you are reading
Projection Decides which asset kinds are even included

A source that does not tell you all five is not usable for a value decision.

An index can deliberately cover a subset. The Universe NFT and Realm read model projects plain NFTs, Realms, and Subrealms, and excludes fungible tokens, Containers, and DMINT items. Asking it about a Container is not a bug when it returns nothing. It is out of scope by declaration.

Always read the projection declaration before concluding that an asset does not exist.

Do not vote. Investigate in this order:

  1. Are they on the same network?
  2. Are they at the same chain position, or is one behind?
  3. Are they at the same validator revision?
  4. Is the behavior in question activation sensitive at the height involved?
  5. Do they cover the same projection?

Only after all five match does a disagreement mean one of them is wrong.

For anything with value at stake, compare more than one compatible source, and treat any disagreement as a hold, not a tie-break. Record the revision and generation of each answer so the difference can be explained afterwards.