Are you for or against Ordinals?

Bitcoin was initially conceived to let people to send money to their contacts without the need for third party intermediaries. This is especially empowering for people who have no bank accounts or are suffering from hyperinflation. However, human ingenuity knows no bounds, so enterprising developers made use of the Taproot upgrade to allow people to inscribe up to 4MB of data directly on the blockchain.

Enabling NFT inscriptions proved to be a well-received move as 50,000 of them were integrated into the blockchain shortly after the launch. Ordinals were thus born and became a buzzword among Bitcoin holders.

This has divided the Bitcoin community into two camps. The first camp supports this innovation as Ordinals expands Bitcoin’s use case, thus making it more relevant to their daily lives. Inscribing monumental stuff as NFTs also appeals to their need to record a part of themselves for posterity. On the other hand, detractors feel that too many NFTs will flood the blockchain, thus filling the mempool memory of the nodes. This adversely affects the smaller players who have smaller nodes, which in turn affects decentralisation negatively and increases transaction fees.

Which camp do you belong to?


There's three camps: idiots and scammers who think art can be tokenized, people who acknowledge ordinals don't violate the protocol rules and therefore further discussion is irrelevant, and idiots who think they can do something to stop camp 1

Proud member of camp 3

re: camp 2, further discussion is relevant in order to change the protocol rules to fight inscriptions

re: camp 1, a blocksize decrease would "do something to stop camp 1" because it would make inscriptions more expensive and possibly prompt their creators to go make them somewhere else


lol jk, that's all very fair, and may I say I am a fan of your instructional videos.

I am open to discussing protocol changes to get rid of inscriptions. I guess I was more criticizing discussions that are just about "do you like ordinals or are you mad???". This probably goes without saying, but a protocol change really needs to offer more benefits than just disincentivizing ordinals. It's not a pressing problem, nor do I think it will be.

I do believe I would support a blocksize decrease, and agreed, it would help drive out ordinals.

420 sats \ 0 replies \ @dustin 24 Mar

I am "for" Ordinals. I'm not an art fan, but there are use cases here and Bitcoin hasn't changed to support them. If you want to change Bitcoin and come up with your own thing that isn't Bitcoin anymore and doesn't support anything like Ordinals, go fork off. There is a word for the kind of coin that you will be creating when you wind up not having the longest chain!

People fussed when non-financial information was put into OP_RETURN as well, now those people have something new to fuss about.

I'm against Ordinals. I'm also against doing anything on a technical level against Ordinals. Rather, I'm for using social mechanisms against Ordinals. Shaming those users for example.

у тебя есть все шансы. ставь комоссии х2))) и они не пройдут...

I'm not a jpeg enjoyer, but I'm also a hacker type and I think the concept and technical execution of Ordinals + Inscriptions is very clever. Also, I can appreciate the "Ordinals theory" mysticism for the really brilliant viral marketing that it is.

I'm torn because I like the idea of storing relevant data onto the chain, but instead its being filled with monkey pictures.

That's just humanity. Isaac Asimov predicted the internet years before it came out and said, "Do you realize in the future you'll have access to a complete library of humanity in your home, and you'll be able to educate yourself as much as you want on your own time?"

And while it's perfectly true some people do that, most just use the internet for 140-character trash talking, pornography, and doomscrolling, and so the overall IQ of the race has probably actually dropped post-internet 🤷‍♂️

все начинается с обезьяны) даже мы. Дарвин....

Ambivalent. Experimentation is cool and useful but I'm not getting in a bidding war for an inscription.

Neither for or against. Bitcoin is a public good people will use it as they see fit but will have to pay a price. Block space is scarce so plan accordingly

this thread is fucking retarded

Who cares? Not me. Honestly, the only reason I'm posting this is so others will know they aren't alone (if others see it this way). There are so many things people do with their lives that I think are dumb or bad. I have no control over them nor do I want to have control. Whatever. I suspect this is a fad and will get priced out as adoption of Bitcoin increases. We have real problems to focus on. This is a distraction.

against, in the same way as I would be against letting a toddler doodle in your checkbook. it's not the worst thing ever, but it's annoying and not the intended use case.

пусть рисует пока есть место и время... дальше это станет дороже и продуктивнее.

10 sats \ 1 replies \ @F 24 Mar

I think ordinals are cool, but couldn't you already inscribe a few lines of text into a transaction if you wanted to before?

It seems to me it would be better to allow less space be used again, because what is an NFT really other than a link to a jpeg?

If I understood it correctly, NFTs on bitcoin are not links to jpegs.

They are really storing the data on the blockchain.

122 sats \ 0 replies \ @cecil 24 Mar

ordinals are at best a shitcoiner attempt to make Bitcoin worse.

I'm against ordinals. Bitcoin is money and should only be used for money. I see them as an abuse of the network.

This is something that I think most decentralized systems are vulnerable to. They tend to lean towards permissiveness that can lead to a sort of tragedy of the commons. Ownership demands stewardship (it doesn't inevitably lead to stewardship though). No one owns the Bitcoin network so, at the end of the day, you can use Bitcoin however you want. No hard or soft fork was needed to implement ordinals. It was literally people deciding to use Bitcoin in a manner outside its purpose.

This is not to say that someone should own the Bitcoin network. Obviously this would kill its power as a hard money. We should just be aware that this is an weakness of Bitcoin that can be exploited. Its not perfect after all. Nothing created by human hands can be perfect. We should, however, be intolerant of this.

I don't like ordinals. But I think it's better that they use Bitcoin than another chain, because it gives miners more fees, leading to a more robust and secure network.

TPS is already small as hell, so the more crap u add into it, the least likely it is to succeed in the long run and it will be more and more expensive to get transaction to confirm. Bitcoin could very well turn into another shitcoin. Unfortunately

A fool and his money are soon to be parted

The market will decide.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @01xCc 24 Mar

комиссии помогут , халвинг подталкнет, майнер поправит время)))

Undecided for two competing reasons:

  • On the one hand, socializing the cost of storing one's assets feels like a very un-ethical and antithetical thing to Bitcoin.

  • On the other hand, the freedom to "speak" on the blockchain began with the Genesis block and is part of the Bitcoin ethos.

Would like to see a compromise implemented that addresses both of those points.

EDIT: Just saw this and I think maybe it's going in the right direction:

The ability to use it is now out of the bag, and people will use it as they see fit, while I personally don't see the point in these collectibles if people want to waste their money buying, creating, and trading them so be it, its your bitcoin you do with it as you please

I do think that NFTs only became popular on other platforms because your native token can be spin up to pay for it out of nothing, there's a real economic cost to wasting bitcoin on silly transactions and I think the market figures that out with time

I don't see this stuff going away anytime soon, but i do think it will fall to the histroy books the same way as things like satoshi dice and counterparty did before

As a node operator, I consider Ordinals theft of my storage resources.
As a Bitcoin user, I consider Ordinals network abuse.
As a Bitcoin Evangelist, I consider Ordinals a necessary evil in the development process that will result in a more resilient network down the road.

We'll get through this. We always will.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @jk_14 25 Mar

Against. RGB (or Taro) is the right way to go...

11 sats \ 0 replies \ @Neo 25 Mar

As long as it's possible within the Bitcoin rule set, it will be there no matter if I like it or not.

16 sats \ 0 replies \ @om 25 Mar

I'm for a version of Ordinals that stores hashes instead of JPEGs themselves. There's no reason why monkeys need to be kept in everybody's space instead of just in the space of the owner and whoever else wants to store it.

Also ambivalent. I value the work of Ordinals to be able to mint NFTs in Bitcoin and add that extra value to the types of btc but at the same time I think it's a way to adulterate the network so...yes but no.

I don't see the point, but I'm not against it.

If there was no blocksize limit I would probably be against them

As long as you abide by the rules of the Bitcoin network then I'm NOT against it

Even if you are, there is nothing you and I can do anything about it (within the rules) so lets move on!

{I havent dabbled into ordinals/NFTs myself and dont see the need to}

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @01xCc 24 Mar

Только за! я смогу поместить туда любое изображение. да так что это будет правдой еще на протяжении долгих лет. и возможности удалить нет. но будет возможность выкупить это! пра пра пра пра внуки будут знать что произошло в 2020-х годах) Просто пользоваться еще не умеем.) Но обязательно научимся. хотя основная база данных уже была внедрена по 1 сат все нормально)

дай полное пояснение что такое мелкий держатель? с 1000 сатоши???

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @PV 24 Mar

miner's point of view: keep earning bitcoins no matter what information the block has. ordinals do not understand the function of the blockchain or understand it so well that they want their nonsense in the blocks

It doesn't matter how I feel, bitcoin "is". Markets gonna market.

I don't care about monkey pics, but I see a use case for digital property such as sats names or digital titles on an immutable blockchain that's not a centralized shitcoin con.

Only time will tell if it's relevant and valid, or just kids playing with code.