FYI this is an issue with inscription numbering, not ordinal numbering.

For some reason, people like counting their inscriptions by order of issuance. Some inscriptions were not being included in the tally. It's not really a big deal.

Well, it's a new thing. Bitcoin itself had it's own value overflow incident in the early days.

one sat = one sat 🫳

🎤💥

Lol I take great joy in the schadenfreude

balm for the soul.

ordinals numbering isn't broken. They're just numbered sequentially as they're mined and there's a simple first-in-first-out algorithm for transactions.

The GH discussion linked is about Inscription numbering. Inscriptions (the onchain data blobs -- images, video, 3d models, text, etc) are numbered sequentially in the index. So the 100th image that was inscribed is "inscription 99" (they're zero indexed). The numbers don't have any impact on ordinals consensus, but collectors (degens) have ascribed market value to low numbers (i.e. "I want to collect inscriptions with numbers below 10k"), or specific numbers (the 1,000,000th inscription). So some people think that re-counting previously unindexed inscriptions would revalue a subset of inscriptions.

It's interesting and funny drama, in large part because its over a thing that accidentally ended up having a lot of perceived meaning, and in part because a very vocal minority of bitcoin users really hate anything related to inscriptions/ordinals and are enjoying the drama.

🍿