Nostr Web Client

Consensus rules are just as arbitrary as ordinal rules

Sorry but that’s not true at all. The consensus rules are actually consequential to the operation of the network. Ordinals are not.

There is nothing but social agreement holding up the “ownership” of an ordinal. If the small group who used them decided it didn’t matter, then there’s literally nothing consequential about the claim. They can literally only point at something in the blockchain and then state that they own it, without any power or control over that piece of data in any way.

However, millions of people could claim that I don’t own my bitcoin, with tons of social “authority.” But none of it will alter the fact that my key is still the only thing that is going to unlock those coins. And my control of that entry in the ledger remains consequential and absolute.

If the framing you offer was true, then there would literally be no innovation in #Bitcoin at all, it would just be social consensus. It seems rather clear that the innovation is specifically in establishing real economic weight and cryptographic proof as a form of defense of that social consensus. Ordinals have nothing of the sort. The network doesn’t even know they exist.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

semisol 1y ago

Reminder that the DAO fork happened

Sufficient social consensus can result in a fork to steal your coins and you can’t spend it

The end

Guy Swann 1y ago

Sure, on a completely centralized shitcoin network issued by a group of insiders who handed out all of the coins to their bros… that’s pretty likely 😆

But the whole point is that with sufficient decentralization, the rules override the social consensus of any small, influential group.

I’d argue that this is literally THE innovation of #Bitcoin. And pretending it isn’t real or that it’s equally arbitrary or meaningless as a bunch of people simply saying “you own this,” I think only serves to confuse TF out of people and equate the literal technological revolution underpinning bitcoin as if it’s just the same shallow social agreement as Pokémon cards.

Just my 2 sats

sommerfeld 1y ago

You don't "own" bitcoin, you own pieces of data that can produce signatures that can satisfy a script which can produce a consensus valid transaction. That's the pure mathematical factual way to look.

You can apply the same logic to ordinals. Only the ones with the right pieces of data can produce consensus valid "ordinal transactions".

Guy Swann 1y ago

Agree with the first paragraph. But still don’t see how the comparison in the second has any weight.

There is nothing holding the “consensus” of ordinals together.

This issue isn’t about whether something is “consensus valid” or not, it’s about the degree of assurance of the *consensus system itself.*

So yes, ordinals have their own consensus, just like my HOA, just like a game of Dungeons and Dragons, just like you can buy a plot of land on the moon, and just like #Bitcoin.

But I’m saying that to treat all of these *very different* consensus models as exactly the same is simply not a useful (or accurate) framing.

Chromie 1y ago

fucking nailed it

Chromie 1y ago

sort your channels out Guy I can't zap you! lol