Our goal as Bitcoin Magazine since 2019 was to make Bitcoin accessible and fun. We have always worked with and been open to the entire Bitcoin ecosystem. We have not always taken the most “popular” path but our guiding light is using Bitcoin and advocating for Bitcoin adoption. I believe we are being consistent regarding ordinals. On the contrary I have seen many detractors to how we are using Bitcoin stating they prefer to not have the cohort interested in ordinals in Bitcoin at all! This perspective is fundamentally opposed to our view of Bitcoin being for everyone. We are happy to host dissenting opinions of ordinals on our platform if they are thoughtful and we acknowledge that there are strong intellectual arguments against inscriptions and ordinals. Responding to DMs.
Discussion
Convince me that the ordinals sale wasn’t a lame cash grab looking for a bigger fool to sell to, then. Attemping to argue that there is an element of benevolence and “bitcoin for all” to this is simply untrue.
This is inherently shitcoinery at it’s purest. Stop shitcoining, Bitcoin Magazine.
ありがとう😆💜🇯🇵🇹🇭
Giving a voice to someone and let them publish opinions about ordinals on your platform is ok but selling stupid jpegs doesn’t make any sense
It does make sense when fiat is the priority
Though I'd never "buy" one, I'm in favor of ordinals and the related inscriptions referencing them. Thank you for not caving and sticking to your principles.
My man. You guys are auctioning JPEGs of your magazine covers and advancing the NFT narrative to Bitcoiners. May as well have put Assange’s face on a shitcoin magazine as far as I’m concerned. It’s an irresponsible, high time preference strategy that is going to get people wrecked.
Rare Satoshi from 2010? Give me a break. I don’t recall wiki-leaks getting funded with rare satoshis or monke jpegs. The last I checked, it was the censorship resistant properties of bitcoin that kept them operational.
Advocating for Assange and working with his team to push the narrative towards justice is the right thing to do. But what does an NFT have to do with it any of that?
You’ve lost a lot of loyal, vocal, and die hard bitcoiners with this move.
BOOM. This. 👆 21 million times.
It's not about who we "allow" or "not allow" to use #Bitcoin, especially since its permissionless nature takes that completely out of our hands.
This is about right vs. wrong, and it always has been. I loved #[4] for championing so much of what was right (I still love the articles that continue to do that!), but all this ordinals and inscriptions business is just. plain. wrong.
😂 well said… especially the “ordinals and inscriptions business” part. This screams cash grab. Stick to reporting the news #[3]
🤝
We are not advancing the “NFT” narrative my man. We are advancing Bitcoin adoption. Sorry it doesn’t look the way you want it to look.
Supporting Julian Assange can come in many different forms. His team is very excited to work with us on our mags and conferences.
What’s in the water over at Bitcoin Magazine…. “WE ARE ADVANCING BITCOIN ADOPTION” 😂 
Doc, we hosted a conference with 300 talks and over 9000 speaker applications. Our batting average is 99%. How about the talks with Jordan Peterson, Glen Greenwald, and Peter Thiel?
Well… agree to disagree on this one CK. You guys are obviously dug in and unwilling to acknowledge the risks of not only advocating for, but participating in ordinals/inscriptions. Yes, you may attract new bitcoiners to the space by auctioning off “rare satoshis”. But what happens when those same people get wrecked because their monke jpeg becomes worthless?
Bitcoin DGAF. But you are using your platform irresponsibly.
You're trying to rationalize your bad actions by the good actions you have taken. Doesn't work that way.
Wait, I'm confused now. You are selling NFTs though? So from an objective prospective, you're advancing both narratives? Seems fair to say. If you're creating special sats and selling them for more, you're advanciing that narrative as well as what it's inscribed on, no? If we're having fair and open discussion, then that seems fair to say.
If you want to make any progress with the die hard bitcoiners, then can you imagine a world where your actions would be seen as advancing both narratives? Not saying it's a bad thing, especially because you seem confident in your decision. But it is technically that, correct? Both narratives?
But because you're confident, you're saying that advancing any narrative is a good narrative for Bitcoin? These are all honest questions. I'm trying to understand.
There is only 1 narrative that narrative is hyperbitcoinization.
Colored coins, NFTs, and now “rare satoshis”. No use case. Artificial scarcity. History is not on your side. 
Okay cool. Thanks for clarifying. You see nfts as part of that path (not separate from) and the main thing is just that we get to hyperbitcoinization. As far as I've always heard, Bitcoin dgaf either and this too is good for Bitcoin. Guess we'll see if those continue to hold true.
And you realize you might mislead some new people or sell sats for way more than they're actually worth to pull some profit for Julian Assange (I love Julian btw) and with your value and moral system, that's okay with you. Just really having to gnaw on this because I myself am conflicted on your choice. I'll drink some coffee and maybe that'll make me wake up to how hyperbitcoinization is worth it at all costs.
To be fair, I don’t believe they have sold the Assange “rare Satoshi”.
Thanks, that is fair. I'm just thinking out loud here because I don't really know where I sit with this. Lots of people have been scammed by NFTs. Bitcoin magazine heralds Bitcoin and is now creating NFTs. It could not be a bad thing, eh? Or it could be a misguided attempt at hyperbitcoinization that will harm more than it helps. It's just hard to know. So I'm glad they stand strong in their conviction and I hope it brings the results they envision.
Who are you trying to convince with this bs? Yourself?
NFTs and “digital collectibles” are widely regarded as greater-fool scams in the Bitcoin community, and using the Bitcoin blockchain doesn’t change the fact that it’s a borderline predatory practice to sell one sat for a Bitcoin, just because it’s “special”.
Bitcoin Magazine should be free to operate the business as desired… but backlash and disappointment from a (what I assume is) a large segment of your core audience should not be a surprise.
I absolutely agree that growing the Bitcoin user base is important, and there a ton of ways to achieve that.
But Bitcoin Magazine *selling* NFTS doesn’t strike me as a particularly useful way to spur adoption. It feels icky, if anything.
NFT scams are on the rise/ruse, disgustingly disguised as digital fractional ownership schemes.
Being ‘interested in ordinals’ and hosting dissenting opinions on your platform is one thing. Selling ordinals is quite another.
Doing so presents a level of ‘legitimacy’ to those that follow you and don’t know better/haven’t done the research. In that sense, it is the same as an influencer promoting a shitcoin.
What do you see is the value proposition for ordinals? In what way are they worth the sats people are paying for them? Why do you support them at all?
Open discussion so everyone can see. Not DMs. Using DMs is a cop out weak move. What is there to hide?
Agree CK… it shitty to have a conversation with someone in private, then watch as they take your arguments and release a public response instead of just replying directly to your DM. 
I never said bitcoin magazine shouldn’t report on ordinals/inscriptions. I think that you absolutely should report on developments in the space. What you should not be doing with your large platform, is minting “rare satoshis” and auctioning them off for profit. This is pushing a narrative that ordinals and inscriptions are OK for everyone to participate in, when in reality there is a long history of artificially trying to create scarcity in this space. Colored coins, NFTs, and now monke JPEGs and magazine covers minted on “rare satoshis”.
It’s irresponsible and will get plebs wrecked.
#gorillawarfare