Replying to Avatar ODELL

Interesting thought, but I'd say such superposition already exists.

If there is no CT, there is still no mapping between sats in each input and sats in each output. (Because satoshis don't exist, any more than an inch 'exists'). Unambiguous mapping of input to output only exists for 1 in 1 out.

Any other interpretation like FIFO is just something an observer makes up. Not just that, but it clearly has zero correlation with actual chains of ownership.

It's true that CT makes this arbitrary assignation either impossible or much harder. You could still do it by publically sharing info (which is verifiable). It would be stupid, of course, because you could just choose to not use CT.

nostr:nevent1qqs8735gevauguff55zapujsn73rpjdkhzly9us9a7u4p0yyp6jwv0cpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejsygqyey2a4mlw8qchlfe5g39vacus4qnflevppv3yre0xm56rm7lveypsgqqqqqqs6hqqap

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Exactly, ordinals always has been a belief system. If you don't believe sats map from input to output in a specific manner, then they don't. I don't expect ordinals to last but the ability to commit arbitrary data to the block chain is useful. Consider the dissemination of important texts or instructions or pieces of historical information. Utilizing the inscriptions code for this is great, but tying that data to a specific satoshi is make believe.