The Ordinals fiasco showed us who actually understood Bitcoin's block dynamics.

Some people wanted to change the code immediately & focused all their energy in meaningless tirades.

It also helped the advancement of the Lightning Network - as it showed what a volatile & expensive fee market looks like with respect to channel size.

We wouldn't be zapping without Segwit, in fact, we'd be stuck with fees just as high if not higher than the environment during peak Ordinals.

That means we'd essentially be claiming that only the store of value narrative really matters, as fiat is used as a medium of exchange anyways.

Sounds kinda shitty for the people who need it the most, even if it were to be the premier savings tool for the wealthy regardless.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Have yet to hear any arguments for you about Drivechains.

The taproot + Segwit debate has been settled for some time.

Well, people have been clamoring that one of, or both, we're a mistake.

Even as recently as the latest anti-drivechain arguments using it as a talking point.

Having a framework for Bitcoin sidechains is intriguing,

We could be developing tools that allow for features that will attracts users & actually help those people achieve whatever it is they want.

Creates a supply & demand dynamic that avoids classic funding pitfalls.

But as I stated above, I haven't formed my opinion one way or the other (yet).

You seemed to have formed yours! Which is why I asked 🤝.

Sounds vague

You're the one with a firm stance, so nothing about the possibilities should be vague to you?