Honestly, I am very impartial on which one's making sense and who's right. On one hand, Ordinals and their supporters have a point. At this point in time there's no use appealing to what Satoshi would've wanted for bitcoin. The project is bigger than him now and is already self-serving, so I don't think any of his opinions matter at this point. On the other, I can see this causing problems in the long run, they won't be the last project that's going to run in the bitcoin blockchain, thus this may cause issues down the line in the matters of transaction processes.
Sometimes it makes me feel sad when Satoshi's original vision for Bitcoin is somehow belittled by what we prefer to make of it today. But perhaps it's just the way it is. After all, Bitcoin is not static. But it's not a question of Bitcoin being bigger than Satoshi; it's about Bitcoin being bigger than what it was originally intended for.
Anyway, I'm also seeing potential problems down the road, but there will certainly be solutions as well.
firstly many people keep playing the fungible card. waving it around
fungibility is not a 2 option yes or no
its a scale
a scale of suspicion/uniqueness
nothing is 100% fungible or "fungible: yes"
everything is a scale. even paper cash
But a crumpled and soiled 1 USD bill has the same value and purchasing power and is interchangeable with a smooth and newly-issued 1 USD bill. However, a Satoshi inscribed with a work of art or a pricey monkey JPEG might carry with it a heavy premium and, therefore, won't anymore be interchangeable with another Sat.
secondly bitcoin doesnt need to be an 'all-in' thing offering every utility under the sun with hundreds of bloaty options to hold weird funky metadata thats got nothing to do with moving simple satoshi units from one address to another
however trying to remove normal peoples transaction utility off bitcoin main net and then bloat bitcoin blocks up with just elitist batch reserve swaps in bloaty scripts and output listings is not the purpose of bitcoin either. nor is delaying onchain scaling by years to instead over promise some other subnetwork phished as bitcoin2.0 will do the job that then doesnt require bitcoin to scale
bitcoin should allow people to move bitcoin easily and cheaply on the mainnet and then have secure functional and non-flawed/non buggy subnetworks that actually do provide real utility for niche purposes.. and not some fluffy snake oil promises
bitcoin can lock value easily without code modification.. it should then be upto a sub network to then do the dynamic stuff it wants to add extra functionality of some weird service option not native to bitcoin
but where the pegging is actually strong,secure and non buggy on the subnetwork side
Or is everything right now just how Bitcoin organically develops? All or nothing, take it or leave it. It's either you make it open and allow all kinds of features to sprout like Ordinals or close it and forget about an on-chain scaling solution along with all kinds of possible ridiculous features.