All I want for Christmas is for my community to be intellectually honest and consistent.
Trust me, it will actually make you more bullish and optimistic not less. 
Discussion
π«‘
How is viewing Bitcoin as imperfect and also anti-fragile intellectually dishonest?
So we should simply accept any bug rolled into a fork without even a discussion about how to address it? I don't understand how the bitcoin team could fix an an accidental fork in 2013, fix a billion coin emission bug, and continually limit Bitcoin-as-storage scenarios, but now we should just throw up our hands and say "o well, it's up to the invisible hand now".
Giving up seems to be the logical inconsistency here.
Thatβs the thing with βbugsβ if itβs actually real bitcoiners will be able to acknowledge them and act.
If we canβt come to agreement that they are bug then they prolly are not bugs.
We come to an agreement through open discussion. At best, we are in "wait and see" mode. If this bug begins to present an existential risk to bitcoin primarily as a transaction network (and not a NAS), don't blame the people who identified the bug early.
Both things can be true. You just have to use your brain and do some thinking
I never saw any bitcoiner to say that ordinals shit ruined Bitcoin, just that it a silly way to do it that has bad consequences for some people in some directions...
Lots of them have.
Their weak conviction is sad.
It also presents a needlessly accelerated schedule for
* noderunners to up their specs
* adoption of L2 before major attack vectors have been addressed
Nobody really talks about time as a factor here. Something that forces users and infrastructure runners' hands can also be classified as a bug
I see it as having been enabled through the unintended consequences of a Bitcoin improvement.
I don't see the inscribers activity as being sustainable. I don't think we should be encouraging the censorship of valid transactions even if we universally don't like them.
Evolving L2 & L3 solutions without introducing more improvements to layer 1 should be the priority.
If you run a node, you are already censoring. So don't worry about your purity. There is no reason to create apologia on behalf of scammers.
I really hate how people who partake in ordinals are universally cast off as "Scammers". This is the exact same thing as when Elizabeth Warren calls everyone that uses Bitcoin criminals and drug dealers.
Are there some scammers in the Ordinals space, yes of course. But making vast generalizations about a bunch of new bitcoin users sure as hell isn't going to help anyone.
I am making a broad generalization because broadly, generally inscriptions are just cynical money grabs by scammers.
What information do you have that supports your claim? How do you know the intentions of the inscribers? The vast majority of inscriptions have never been listed for sale. Are there some people in it a pump-n-dump, for sure, is it the vast majority? I'm going to need some evidence for that.
This is the exact opposite of what Liz Warren is doing, because she is using a niche "1%" use case of bitcoin for illicit activity. Inscriptions ARE broadly and generally scams.
not quite. if you view ordinals as ntfs, like many do, then they are scams, just like nfts. anyone participating in their creation is looking for nothing more than to pump and dump random images known to not be scarce and not be worth anything in the long run. therefore, that makes the creators scammers.