50 sats \ 6 replies \ @carlosfandango 28 Mar \ parent \ on: Stacker Saloon
deleted by author
Yep.
So in Casey's Ordinals Theory, one can assign a rarity to sats that are minted during important moments of Bitcoin's protocol rules. These are based on the first sat minted during a new block ("uncommon"), a new difficulty adjustment ("rare"), and a new halving ("epic").
Like 'em or not, there's a market for these things and they can command some pretty outrageous prices. A "rare" sat goes for around $400k, and there are currently 415 of those. The "epic" sat is much more scarce, with only 3 currently in existence and the 4th about to be minted.
I don't think there's consensus on how much an epic sat will get valued, they're so rare that I don't think a trade has taken place. But I wouldn't be surprised if one sold for several block's worth of rewards... hence the pressure for miners to fight and reorg.
In expectation of boring responses I'll no doubt get to this comment from others: Yeah yeah, I know, ordinals are silly, you're not saying anything new or interesting. However, you cannot insulate yourself from market behavior. It's important to pay attention to these things even if you disagree with them, because they could have ramifications for the orange coin we all know and love.
reply
deleted by author
reply
Indeed. What's interesting to me is the idea that there are some markets one can't help but participate in.
Would I ever speculate on buying an ordinal? Hell no. But if I found that by pure chance I was in possession of one tagged to one of my UTXOs, would I sell it to someone else in order to scoop up more BTC? Hell yes.
reply
But if I found that by pure chance I was in possession of one tagged to one of my UTXOs, would I sell it to someone else in order to scoop up more BTC? Hell yes.
Same here. I actually think Ordinals is great since one could argue that a theory like Ordinals coming out was as inevitable as the ETFs if we want to have bitcoin mass adoption. Ordinals is just the bitcoin version of collectible coins. I see nothing wrong with that. People are going to be people and we should let them be people.
The only thing that I can understand "bitcoiners" having a problem with is Inscriptions which builds on top of Ordinals due to their direct impact on tx fees.1 But I still think it's important to distinguish Ordinals and Inscriptions: If you don't, you're no better than the ones who say Taproot (or even better: SegWit) was a mistake because "they enabled Inscriptions".
It's important to pay attention to these things even if you disagree with them, because they could have ramifications for the orange coin we all know and love.
This so much. Regarding:
In expectation of boring responses I'll no doubt get to this comment from others
I think I am going to make a post on SN how I used
ord to check if I have some rare sats as some kind of reversed dog whistle: I expect a lot of stackers getting triggered by this and calling me a shitcoiner so this will help me to filter out the independent thinkers (like you, apparently) who don't respond or respond and are as curious as me not as tribal and simple-minded as the vast majority seems to be.Footnotes
-
imo, not an attack and not spam though. it's just hype about expensive subjective trash. ↩
reply
They're definitely interesting. I'm very intrigued by this concept of an opt-in lens to interpret additional on-chain data.
While Casey's protocol IS somewhat arbitrary, I'd argue it cements itself via a network effect. If I came up with a different ordinals protocol, say one that counted all the sats backwards, nobody would care about it. In this sense it's not unlike Bitcoin itself versus all the copycat coins.
You should definitely make that post!
reply
deleted by author
reply