Revisit how we unprotect inscriptions and make UTXO's with inscriptions spendable

[314159265359879]

A user who has Bitcoin with inscriptions on their Bitcoin address can't spend the Bitcoin because Leather is protecting the inscriptions. The user wants an option to unprotect the inscriptions/UTXO.

At the moment, when a user has inscriptions on their Bitcoin balance address, they are protected from accidental spending. There is a check when we calculate the balance and another one before signing the transaction to ensure no inscriptions are spent.

Sometimes, a user gets funds from an exchange, and they contain junk inscriptions (typically BRC20-related, used transfer inscriptions, for example).

The user can unprotect these via collectables, hover over the inscription, and use the top right corner menu.

I have noticed that not all BRC20 inscriptions are shown by indexers these days. Some do not recognize used BRC20 inscriptions anymore (likely because they are worthless after their initial purpose has been fulfilled (ie. mint or transfer).

This address has a UTXO with
~10 inscriptions according to bestinslot.xyz
~2800 inscriptions according to ordiscan.com

It isn't viable for a user to manually unprotect all 2800 inscriptions; sometimes, not all of them are shown. How do they make their Bitcoin spendable again?
For example, if they select a single inscription from a UTXO on the Bitcoin balance address, can we ask them to unprotect all the other inscriptions at the same address?
What if there is a difference between the two accounts, spendable bitcoin, yet protected when the second check is done?

[linear]

LEA-2193 Revisit how we unprotect inscriptions and make UTXO's with inscriptions spendable

[314159265359879]

The leather user concerned here confirmed they are seeing thousands of inscriptions. They are interested in an alternative solution.

[markmhendrickson]

It sounds like an option to unprotect all inscriptions in bulk (then re-protect individually as needed) would satisfy their need? @kyranjamie I presume that's relatively trivial if we were to add the UI?

[kyranjamie]

Yeah this wouldn't be hard to build.

_{RIP my beloved colour coded, prefixed label naming convention 🪦}

[markmhendrickson]

Hm I still used it here, just Linear nests by semi-colon? area:utxo-protection

[camerow]

These kinds of one off things will inevitably compromise the primary UX flows. As we build a web app perhaps this kind of stuff could be built out as "utilities" (perhaps that's even a menu option) and essentially be built as very specific features, not embedded within the primary flows.

Eg. a utility to protect/unprotect UTXOs, a utility to consolidate UTXOs, a UTXO inspection utility