I have no idea but Jimmy Song does a pretty good job in his post -> #512009

I knew you didn’t mean it that way, but I wanted to clarify for other readers :D

Thank you for the zap!!

that'd be cool but it's harder than winning the lottery, which is actually EASIER than getting an olympic medal. Might as well start brushing off my ice skates!

There is an incentive to pay high fees for block inclusion on a new name, as the first ordered transaction claiming the name owns it. These names are meaningless, in an isolated and proprietary namespace. They mean nothing and do nothing. Each name has some mintable fungible token.

This incentive is not compatible with economical use of Bitcoin (eg: fees do not outspend value transferred). In an environment where fees exceed the average spend, the protocol ceases to be censorship resistant value transfer and transforms into censorship by noise.

I will add that none of this means anything in Bitcoin, the order in a block is irrelevant — a txin references a tx and output index. Not order. No sats are ordered, but txout-index allows the spender to differentiate the spend+change, multiple recipients, etc. The only order that matters is the order of blocks, and we enforce that by proof of work.

It is sad that a bunch of scammers decided to use this moment of world attention to start spamming trash strings and scamming each other with worthless string scrip.