0 sats \ 15 replies \ @harrr 12 Dec 2023 \ on: There are 3 kinds of people into Ordinals: bitcoin
There are three kinds of people against Ordinals:
- Innocent parrots who will just repeat whatever their chosen master says
- Heartless totalitarians who want to retroactively change how bitcoin works
- Spooks paid to destroy the bitcoin mining industry
Miners needing ordinals to survive must be the saddest excuse ever for ordinals lol.
Read the title of the whitepaper. Read the many early discussions on storing arbitrary data onchain. Then you'll understand this is not the purpose of Bitcoin.
reply
Tell that to Satoshi who embedded the times in the genesis block. He did it all wrong.
reply
Lol another lame argument. The exceptional genesis block is now an excuse to post thousands of dickbutt jpegs onchain?
Satoshi and many early devs agreed the chain is not there to store arbitrary data. This is what matters, not the genesis block (exception that confirms the rule).
You guys are grasping at straws.
reply
Hahahaha, a council of elders should decide what bitcoin does, not the consensus mechanism. You are as stupid as the ethereum people who rewrote the rules of their blockchain when their dao failed.
reply
What about the whitepaper, my friend?
Wow, you managed to contradict yourself in one sentence. If you represent the average ordinal enjooyer, yikes.
What do you think consensus means? It's people agreeing on what should/should not be done.
Read up on some Jameson Lopp to better understand Bitcoin:
"I pose to you that bitcoin’s strength comes not from being the embodiment of some dogmatic beliefs of immutability, decentralization or other buzzwords, but from collaboration. The process of taking collaboration and using it to determine human consensus can be noisy and messy, but it’s the governance model within which we must work.
As I see it, this system of governance, rooted in voluntaryism, is the only aspect of bitcoin that is ‘set in stone’."
So far most agree storing arbitrary data onchain is not the goal of Bitcoin. There is broad consensus about that. If and how we should solve it is still up for debate.
reply
The system allows to store data, there was consensus to use the current system. You don't like it and want to change the existing consensus rules.
So far most agree
Hahahahahahaha. "Most agree". Citation needed.
reply
There was consensus to change it many times, don't you know? Bitcoin has had many changes in its first decade, but you seem to disregard that entirely. If there is a consensus, changes can be made again. There "was" consensus for A, there can be consensus for B. That's how Bitcoin development works my friend.
I'm not saying I advocate for change, I'm saying Bitcoin was not designed for arbitrary data storage. PoW and fees can hopefully discourage such spam (for which they were designed).
Do a poll anywhere, ask Bitcoin devs and OGs or even miners, and you'll see that the majority thinks Bitcoin was not designed to store arbitrary data but as a money system.
You can know that it's not designed for that purpose if you consider how many hoops orditards have to jump through to "own" an inscription. They don't even own them. It's embedded in a tx and not even linked to a UTXO. But you probably don't know that.
It's clear from this discussion that you don't understand much about Bitcoin and are just trolling.
reply
Wow, you're so stupid, it's unbelievable...
We know there was consensus in the past BECAUSE THAT CONSENSUS IS PART OF THE BLOCKCHAIN AND VALIDATION RULES.
Now you grand stand here and pretend to know what the future consensus will be. Fuck off. I'm against ordinals, but I am even more against consensus hating ideologues like you.
Ehhh... no.
reply
Thank you for your intelligent rebuttal.
reply