15 sats \ 13 replies \ @xz 6 Dec 2023 \ on: Luke Dashjr said that Ordinals & BRC20 will no longer exist on Bitcoin. bitcoin
Can someone point to any thing which shows how ordinals/inscription brc20 translates as value, innovation, or extending community in a notable way? Genuinely curious.
Just look at what the "cryptobros" are doing over there in the shitcoin land. Monkey JPEGs, clown coin casinos, rugpulls, NFTs. You may disagree that is constitutes "value" but a) value is subjective to begin with and noone should be preventing others from spending their money however they wish and b) they did generate a massive business, even in terms of aggregated rugpull value. Again, you may disagree with the ethics of that business, but the facts stand: they did "build" something and got rewarded for their effort.
Now there might be some other, let's call them "pragmatic", uses, like digital deeds of ownership, blockchain identity, on-chain oracles, financial instruments ("DeFi") and whatever else might come up as a result of a more programmable and data-rich blockchain.
reply
noone should be preventing others from spending their money however they wish
So... Bitcoin shouldn't have any rules? All rules stop someone from doing what they want
reply
How did you go from him stating people should be able to spend how they want to Bitcoin not having rules?
reply
Because rules stop people from spending how they want
You have to pick: option 1, people can spend how they want. Option 2, there are rules
You can't have both options because they are incompatible
reply
Your false dichotomy is incompatible with logic. Without rules there wouldn’t be a definition of money to spend. When saying people should spend how they want, there’s an implicit assumption that there are rules governing what money is. Dropping all the rules invalidates the axioms on which the statement was made.
reply
Everything you said after your first sentence seems to support my dichotomy
If you can't have money in the first place without rules then you certainly can't have people spending it how they want, because (1) "spending it how you want" means "spending it without rules," (2) without rules it can't exist, and (3) you can't spend something that doesn't exist
Rules create the possibility of money and simultaneously limit how it can be spent
reply
Again you’re assuming (1) which is not true. You can have rules for money for which “spending how you want” fits within those rules. Bitcoin has rules but when someone says they can spend it how they want, they are saying it can be spent any way that is consensus valid. You assuming there are no rules for spending how you want is incorrect and not true to the meaning of the statement. You’re making your own definition of his statement and using a proof by definition that doesn’t apply.
If I say “I can spend money how I want” (A) and you say “so money doesn’t have rules” (B), there is no reasonable way to build that logical consequence (A=>B). If you try and prove it by saying (B) implies “money isn’t money without rules” (C), and (C && A) is contradictory by definition of money, something about those series of statements (your argument) is logically inconsistent
reply
.. they wish and b) they did generate a massive business, even in terms of aggregated rugpull value. Again, you may disagree with the ethics of that business, but the facts stand: they did "build" something and got rewarded for their effort. fair point.
Find it hard to argue with: 'censorship resistance is the value prop'
I just find there's minimal value to come from the suggestion that defi will do xyz argument. I remember we had that whole prop on ERC20, and many (including myself) being a naive Bitcoin student at the time, was sucked in to and luckily pulled myself out of before becoming rugged and learning from that.
Appreciate your reply. These conversations help straighten out internal arguments in my mind. Think my mind rests in the possibilities of a data-rich blockchain, as you say. Maybe the current epoch is that of a teething stage we must go through.
reply
I feel like the whole "DeFi" thing is greatly misunderstood, along with "Web3", and even villified in the bitcoiner circles just because of where cryptobros took them, which is, mostly shitcoin casinos.
Very few finance applications with "real world application" (in quotes, because I'm careful not to denigrate businesses that were built and gave value to their creators) were actually built in the crypto world.
Things I'm mostly looking out for in the Bitcoin world:
- Derivative instruments on commodities (not just BTCUSD), that is futures and options. These are instruments that producers, manufacturers and merchants used for a long time (futures are way older than modern fiat money) and will need those going forward, even if fiat systems collapse and hyperbitcoinization happens. These would ideally be programmed to be self-sovereign and settled without intermediaries, making this a "true" DeFi.
- Actual "Web 3.0" (as in, a significant upgrade to the current enshittification) wherein Bitcoin gets tightly integrated into internet protocols, so that you can, for instance require payment to receive an e-mail, or call API. I want 402 Payment Required to become commonplace.
reply
I want 402 Payment Required to become commonplace.
As I understand rice futures in Japan were the beginning of financial instruments that hedge risk and I can see necessity to have such instruments but isn't layering transactions and settling on-chain a more feasible than encoding data in to on-chain transactions?
To my mind, Web 3.0 rarely seems to be talked about with Bitcoin in the same breath and usually current ideas leverage a digital implementation of fiat as opposed to the tight integration with Bitcoin. Still seems a long way to go.
If someone told me that the reason mempools are full is because of an email service which has launched, or some other real-world utilization of block space to encode data to authenticate transactions, that'd be different. I can't see similarity to these use cases with Oracles, Inscriptions, nor BRC20 tokens.
Maybe there's value by extension by testing block space readiness (and simultaneously creating pain in the fee market?)
Appreciate your thoughts.
reply
isn't layering transactions and settling on-chain a more feasible than encoding data in to on-chain transactions?
I'm afraid I don't understand Bitcoin programming nearly enough to answer this.
But I think this is going to be a case of "buy a house on-chain, buy coffee over Lightning", where participants will weigh the risks to decide which layer to use. For instance, these "microtransactions" (another villified word) for API/emails will surely take place over L2/L3 but a large farmer might want to secure a price for his produce by timelocking funds on-chain, and binding them to an oracle-arbiter (a third party to discern whether goods have been delivered per contract).
This might also not happen at all. I can equally see a future where Bitcoin simply replaces US Treasuries as a backing asset, and even a unit of account, but the vast majority of it, at least in the corporate world, is centrally custodied by banks and there are proprietary networks that move it around much faster and cheaper (and only batch-settle, say, hourly).
And I think we're precisely going through a test period right now, and I hope it's spurring silent innovation, with builders trying to work around a problem (unfeasible fees for retail transactions) and we will see the fruits in the coming months/years.
reply
The thrust of this discussion is what I was poking at here. I think the things you're looking for will be met needs that the ecosystem satisfies, either on btc or on something else.
reply
They don't. They are peak fiat degeneracy.
reply