跳转到内容

本页面的来源

本页面的每条论断都对应固定的修订版本。打开路径即可查看验证所依据的确切来源。

atomicals-electrumx-1.5.2.0

Atomicals ElectrumX

修订 v1.5.2.0 (2025-03-27)

打开固定路径: 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

修订 1d9109c68d95

打开固定路径: 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.

此内容尚不支持你的语言。

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.