Ordinals - just an arbitrary scheme for agreeing on a number for each sat. Bitcoin equivalent of collecting coins or banknotes that have some significance to you, really nothing at all here for people to get upset about. Ignore if you want to, have fun with it if you want to.

Inscriptions - different thing, but *use* ordinal theory to agree on who now owns an inscribed sat if you transfer it. Inscriptions IMHO are genius and cool, and good for Bitcoin. For people that are angry, the original sins were agreeing segwit discount and taproot without fully understanding the repercussions. Max block size is 4MB, deal with it, that argument is over. Also LMAO Bitcoin accidentally has better NFTs than all the Shitcoins *and* now shitcoiners are running Bitcoin nodes. Consensus rules are the rules, not what people ‘want’ Bitcoin to be used for. This is good for Bitcoin.

Casey’s chat with Odel on Citadel Dispatch was good, important points around how Inscriptions now entangle Bitcoin with 1st Amendment free speech because inscriptions are clearly speech not money. Also potentially help with future security budget concerns and ensuring we have a healthy fee market into the future (but also inscription hype could just die out)

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Think worries that Ordinal theory is a threat to fungibility are FUD - if just the suggestion of a scheme to ID sats that doesn’t require any code at all threatens fungibility, then fungibility didn’t really exist.

Existing monies like fiat and gold both have similar things, where an aureus will be worth a lot more than its gold weight because it is an aureus and those are rare and cool; and a 1900 dollar bill is worth more than a dollar for similar reasons. But a pawn shop and a hairdresser can still treat them as just bullion and just a dollar. Most sats are boring under ord theory in the same way a 2021 pound coin is boring.

well said, yeah the 1A attack vector is going to be an interesting one what with all the "objectionable" content. But, this data can be pruned from a full node, right? So not every node op will have it on the premises...

Bit of a philosophical question as to what “counts” as a full node, my feeling is generally a full node doesn’t prune and retains everything. Though yes you can avoid storing some of this stuff, but most nodes are going to have it.

The objectionable content is more of a concern for non-Americans that don’t have the benefit of a 1st amendment, and may live somewhere with shitty speech laws.

(Side note: my definition would be any node from which a new node can complete a full sync from scratch is a “full node”)

The node will have to download everything if it's verifying signatures, but it can then be deleted.