I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this. We're on the same team and I mostly agree with your view.

I think an update to BTC Core will come to address this - but we all need to come to a consensus on a solution and framework - simply saying people 'shouldn't' use Bitcoin like this due to any "reason" - moral, principle or otherwise - to me, flies in the ethos of the whole project. Satoshi wanted to get away from arbitrary stuff like this. Hence, we trust the math and cryptography and verify only. Right? In a sense.

If - take your pick - a famous and important person were to sign or draw on a $1 bill, the value might be worth more to other people. Yes, the bill now becomes something different. It seems to me like inscriptions are similar - yet they still remain fungible. So it's like adding a small piece of graffiti in a sense.

Your reasoning on how Satoshi's aren't real and are just an abstraction loses me. Can you ELI5 more basically?

I think a key distinction for this is: are ordinals just a time-ordering and serial numbering of Sats that an owner can use to way-find (or 'prove' ownership of other metadata stored elsewhere? Or does the inscription live with/in the Sat?

And what does ownership even mean here?

Does physical custody = ownership? Or does a law that is enforced by police, and guns = ownership? What makes you the owner of anything in particular?

Having a time-stamp on a public blockchain like Bitcoin isn't the worst idea IMO.

?