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?