The concept of "Ordinals" or "Ordinal Inscriptions" in the #Bitcoin context seems to be an interpretation rather than a built-in feature of the Bitcoin protocol. Bitcoin transactions are based on Unspent Transaction Outputs (UTXOs), and the protocol does not inherently distinguish individual satoshis within these UTXOs

The idea of designating the "first" satoshi in a new UTXO as an "ordinal" and ascribing unique characteristics to it appears to be an abstraction layered on top of the existing Bitcoin protocol. Such interpretations or applications are not native functionalities of Bitcoin but rather are conceptual frameworks or ideas introduced by individuals or groups, generally scammers

This distinction is crucial for understanding what is and isn't inherently part of the Bitcoin system, especially when considering the original design and intent of Bitcoin as a decentralized peer to peer e-cash system

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

by putting jpegs on them, does it increase the blockchain size?

Yes, not just jpegs though. Endless shitcoins too. However, my point is its foundation relies on make-believe “individual satoshis” that don’t exist

Bitcoin needs to be economically incentivised to be stored and accepted. Anonymous transactions give a neutral reason to store on the timechain, as that data gives insight in things that affect you too.

Monkey dicvs don't. They wouldn't even exist if they had to follow the free market (public mempool)

Put them on layer 2