Ordinals/BRC-20/Inscriptions are now VC funded. And they're going to be pressured to keep growing, no matter what. Yet the hype around their stuff will inevitably fade. And whatever profits they had will dry up. So what will they do?
There are two paths. One is to increase revenue, the other is to reduce costs. The first will be very difficult to do without some new narrative. And they might try that, but it's going to be very difficult on Bitcoin... At least as it currently stands. They could move to another chain, but then, their whole reason for existence, being built on Bitcoin will be no more. Hence the incentive to create new narratives around their stuff and to add "features" to generate interest means some sort of fork.
The other path is to reduce costs. The most obvious cost is the fees being sent to miners. And to reduce that, you need to increase block size or make the blocks more frequent. Either way, this is incentivizing a fork.
The point is that once VC funding entered the picture, the path was set. There will be a conflict of visions and a "peaceful coexistence" was never going to be the outcome.
You are painting a grim picture. Can you give a little more detail about the extent of vc funding?
reply
Created a post in ~oracle for this prediction now
reply
Presumably the companies selling software around this are VC funded. Which has nothing to do with the people paying for the vbytes.
reply
I think you are right Jimmy, I think Udi is channeling Ver here. My own personal dissonance over this issue feels very much like last time. My observation of the dialog between players seems to rhyme with history. We have seen this all before, and we will see it again.
This time, The every day cash narrative sounds far more rational than eternal mspaint-tier jpeg storage chain. But hey, I don't own any apes. Best of luck to the miners!
reply
I'm starting to feel like I'm helping to fund this shit by subscribing to Bitcoin Magazine and going to the Bitcoin Conference. Haven't renewed my Bitcoin Magazine subscription. Not sure if I will.
reply
Let's just leave things as is and this will incentivise other layers.
It was always going to be expensive to move funds on the base layer. It's just sooner than expected becaue of retards with jpegs
reply
Amazing how the zap interaction is so different here than on nostr. SN devs made it so easy to zap here
reply
cause its custodial, which im fine with for LN I don't mind losing a couple thousand sats if SN goes the way of FTX. When Nostr was blowing up I was so confused because at that point I was using SN and its just so much better. Even not having to remember a nostr private key is huge to me. I can just use LN Auth for SN
reply
Because it's all SN custodial on here
reply
Miners can point their hash to pools they align with.
What we need is a good ol fashion price pump. 10x fees ($50-$500) is going to pop this BS. People will stop buying BRC tokens when the fees are high because why use BTC when our "sh$tcoin" is much cheaper.
Unfortunately its the newbies who will be effected by this. Upper layers are honestly not ready yet.
But a fork is out of the question for now. Too early.
reply
you forget that the only reason there are brc-20 tokens in the first place is that VC funds needed another vessel for their scams that isn't Ethereum. Because ethereum and Solana (and all other centralized shitcoins) are going to face regulatory doom
reply
Centralized sh$tcoins are still around. ETH will not make a BRC 20 token to replace it.
If I need to conjoin or open a LN channel, I will out bid these high time preference degens.
IMO forking is not an option for now.
reply
Disagree. VCs have more than enough vessels to invest in. Everybody and their dog is throwing some AI stuff at them currently. There is no shortage of vessels like there was during zirp.
reply
I'm assuming shitcoins on Bitcoin fall under the exact same category as shitcoins on Etherium?
reply
There are levels of sh$tcoinery
Some are worse than others
reply
I mean in a regulatory sense.
reply
Not a lawyer, but I think if they have a known issuer it should be the same as sh$tcoins both "on" bitcoin and other chains.
reply
So this bull run will end with a new fork of bitcoin to mark the beginning of the bear market then?
reply
deleted by author
reply
While I agree in general that their VC incentives will push them towards prioritising profitability, VC investment in the wider crypto space has not been about that, itโ€™s been about accruing maximum exit liquidity for "something made out of nothing" (tokens, nfts, etc).
I also believe we have to look long term and unconventionally at these types of things. Ordinals and their inscriptions are a very "now" thing. Bitcoin is in active development, there are new possibilities that weโ€™ve not even discovered yet.
There is a long march ahead. We talk a lot about a new global, egalitarian, un-censorable, thermodynamically sound financial system. If youโ€™re saying that too many jpegs and some VCs will unwind that, then you may as well sell your stack and buy the SPX.
Bitcoin is and always will be under a constant state of attack. Forever. The task at hand is to defend it. Defence via censorship would be the largest strategic blunder in millennia.
reply
To be honest, I don't think these VC's have much power over Bitcoin at all. It's nothing compared to the power that miners and corporates had in the blocksize wars
And why fork if they can just move on to Bitcoin Cash and then BSV ๐Ÿ˜…
Nevertheless, always good to be vigilant! ๐Ÿ‘
reply
I dont see a way how to reduce costs. Increasing of block size would not work. Thats just more space for inscriptions. Making blocks more often is a similar issue but moved from space axis to time axis.
The only way is to change incentives somehow. E.g. make smaller transactions cheaper and make bigger transactions more expensive. Thus, the inscription-like stuff would become more expensive and sustainable and smaller transactions would still find space in blocks.
However the devil is in details and unintended changes we cannot see now. The system is very dynamic and chaotic, i.e. difficult to predict. I am afraid that the best bitcoin is the most stable and predictable one, thus the one with least changes in the protocol.
reply
Jpgs can also scale down in size. I don't see how we can soft fork it out.
reply
Crypto VCs are cockroaches and they do not have any sway over the network
reply
It will be interesting to see how Ordinals/BRC-20/Inscriptions navigate the pressure to keep growing with the inevitable fading hype and drying up profits. On one hand, increasing revenue seems challenging without a new narrative, especially with the current state of Bitcoin. On the other hand, reducing costs by incentivizing a fork through block size or frequency adjustments could be a path worth exploring. The introduction of VC funding has clearly set the stage for conflicting visions and it's unlikely that a "peaceful coexistence" was ever a possible outcome.
reply
Alternatively, reducing costs, particularly the fees sent to miners, could be pursued by increasing block size or frequency, which would also incentivize a fork. The presence of VC funding is seen as a catalyst for conflicts of vision and making "peaceful coexistence" an unlikely outcome
reply
I'm Bullish, BRC-20 ๐ŸŽ„๐ŸŽ…
reply
Don't you think there is enough experience and wisdom gathered that forking off that way will not work?
reply
Ordinals / BRC-20 / Inscriptions Scams rely on Bitcoin, they will not fork Bitcoin, as that would immediately make the scam worthless.
reply
if BTC forks to stop BRC and ORD I sell my bitcoin immediately and hope for a new world-changing monetary system.
reply
wow if you are the real Jimmy Song you are awesome. That being said I don't think censorship is the answer, remember bitcoin is supposed to be for everyone. Whether people chose to just buy an ETF or do BRC and Ord shit or make their forks of bitcoin.
reply
Stop saying it's censorship. It's not.
reply
can you elaborate? because it sounds like a minority of bitcoiners actually think Ordinals are a problem.
reply
Ordinals are spam at best, a dos attack at worst. Watch Giacomo Zucco's latest videos on censorship and you'll get it. Guy Swann, Beautyon, Parman, etc. are of the same opinion.
Some bitcoiner wannabe hero's feel they need to protect the network from spam filtering because fReeDoM, Odell included. They don't realize there is no absolute freedom in Bitcoin. There has always been "censorship" and filtering of certain tx. These people are false hero's, supporting shitcoin minting on Bitcoin in the name of fReeDoM. Tell me, why does the network censor me from sending 5 MB tx, or 100 byte op_return tx ?
Bitcoin is a p2p cash system, it's not designed for arbitrary data storage and disincentivizes it. Satoshi himself argued that spam can be mitigated with other means if fees are not enough. It's honestly bonkers to see bitcoiners defend the use of Bitcoin for data storage and shitcoin minting.
Ordinals are putting stress on small user adoption for almost a year now (fees alone have not been enough clearly). This can be viewed as an attack, pricing people out way earlier than expected in the adoption curve.
I am not advocating for big changes to Bitcoin, but people should understand the attack at hand and acknowledge it, only then can we discuss possible ways forward.
reply
Giacomo Zucco oh found it
reply
Giacomo Zucco the latest video on YouTube is from 6 months ago. do you have a link to where he discusses ordinals? I understand why it could be considered spam but what about specific transactions that actually are spam should we block those too? I get your point but seems like a slippery slope
reply
There was also a censorship talk he did at Unconfiscatable 2023 (livestream day 1 on YT). Also found a talk on ordinals with Knut Svanholm:
reply
I will say though it seems like he actually agrees that nothing can be done about ordinals. They are retarded sure but all you can do is not include them in your mining pool or node.
reply
There's other opinions on that, but I don't have the technical knowledge to comment on it.
Giacomo also proposes removing the witness discount btw.
That's their problem, our solution is to mine, for individual and small scale mining to focus on Bitcoin not the profit from it.
Otherwise the golden goose may be stuffed with ordinalia for the benefit of miners (public profiteers) and die.
The ETFs sure won't kill it
reply
each day i wake up and there is another psyop
reply
I missed the block size wars, so I'm curious how much VC money was in the air then. With the increased funding for bitcoin companies how will CEOs defend choices when they lose control or face legal action. With possible ETFs which side will these companies take in a hard fork to defend their assets and balance sheets?
reply
Afaik, they started to do all this on shitcoin chains as well. What would be the reason to push for change on Bitcoin?
reply
stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.