——— Does it make sense to demand these are successful, to ease the blockspace burden caused by Ordinal overbloat? Seems both are far less data intense for the L1 tx's required for their sidechain/LN activity, and if they attract network effects, could add even more revenue to miners, while absorbing much of the NFT and speculative volume on said sidechain and LN. This is good for bitcoin's price, bitcoin's miner revenue, bitcoin's liquification ambitions, bitcoin's diversity, bitcoin's self-custody growth, and bad for CEX's and crypto.

——— ——— I've been eavesdropping many popular NFT spaces, and Ordinal fever is full-blown and edged in red. One of them was a well-attended technical space where they discussed in great detail how to run bitcoin nodes, how Taproot worked, and how to make "physical Ordinals" by putting them on Opendimes. Most of the attendees seemed shocked by bitcoin and what was possible, after being told the opposite for years. Lots of excitement.

——— ——— ——— So in a matter of a week, I have become a shitcoiner; my immutable sound money principles have dissipated some. I'm accepting more the view that anything using bitcoin, built on bitcoin, or moving closer to bitcoin as a source of liquidity is a good thing for bitcoin. It's like I've given birth to a gender dysphoric son, and must now nod and smile at clinic visits and revisit my worldview. None of this means I'll run buy a bag of STX or mint penis pic Ords. I'm just saying that the chokehold on stablecoins and censorship of custodial staking by governments will bring crypto one giant step towards bitcoin out of necessity (liquidity, censorship resistance, establishing trading pairs, accessibility, etc).

——— ——— ——— ——— I'm the one that will always tell you that the highest value use case for a coin or token is money, and that will always win. Bringing crypto to bitcoin doesn't change that. Censoring it with smaller blocks or other forks however seems like we'd be bringing bitcoin to crypto.