⭐ Merited by JayJuanGee (1)
To add to the discussion, and since I have recently been reading more about Ordinals and Runes, in the first article written by Casey regarding Ordinals[1] he says that the concept of Ordinals had already been discussed, in some ways, back in 2012, right here in the forum[2][3]:
The idea never reached adoption and generate some discussion about it and eventually Casey would make a post about his idea on the forum on December 2022[4]. What I can't seem to understand so far is the contradiction that Casey makes regarding Ordinals when he says that he has views from those whom he considers being labeled as "ideological Bitcoin maximalists", without being himself a ideological Bitcoin maximalist:
[1]https://rodarmor.com/blog/ordinal-theory/
[2]https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102355.0
[3]https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=117224.0
[4]https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=117224.msg1273726#msg1273726
[5]https://rodarmor.com/blog/inscriptions-a-guide-for-the-ideological-maxi/
*He mispelled bitcointalk
(Bitocin??)
Quote
~
In another sense though, ordinals were in fact created by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009 when he mined the Bitcoin genesis block. In this sense, ordinals, and especially early ordinals, are certainly of historical interest.
I personally favor the latter view. This is not least because the ordinals were independently discovered on at least two separate occasions, long before the era of modern NFTs began.
On August 21st, 2012, Charlie Lee posted a proposal to add proof-of-stake to Bitcoin to the Bitocin* Talk forum[2]. This wasn't an asset scheme, but did use the ordinal algorithm, and was implemented but never deployed.
On October 8th, 2012, jl2012 posted a scheme[3] to the the same forum which uses decimal notation and has all the important properties of ordinals. The scheme was discussed but never implemented.
In another sense though, ordinals were in fact created by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009 when he mined the Bitcoin genesis block. In this sense, ordinals, and especially early ordinals, are certainly of historical interest.
I personally favor the latter view. This is not least because the ordinals were independently discovered on at least two separate occasions, long before the era of modern NFTs began.
On August 21st, 2012, Charlie Lee posted a proposal to add proof-of-stake to Bitcoin to the Bitocin* Talk forum[2]. This wasn't an asset scheme, but did use the ordinal algorithm, and was implemented but never deployed.
On October 8th, 2012, jl2012 posted a scheme[3] to the the same forum which uses decimal notation and has all the important properties of ordinals. The scheme was discussed but never implemented.
The idea never reached adoption and generate some discussion about it and eventually Casey would make a post about his idea on the forum on December 2022[4]. What I can't seem to understand so far is the contradiction that Casey makes regarding Ordinals when he says that he has views from those whom he considers being labeled as "ideological Bitcoin maximalists", without being himself a ideological Bitcoin maximalist:
Quote
If you ask me my views, they will be nearly indistinguishable from those of, for lack of a better term, ideological Bitcoin maximalists. I loathe the state, have no particular respect for authority, and believe that Bitcoin is the path away from the debauched debasement of our lives and civilization that fiat currency has wrought.
However, I do not consider myself an ideological Bitcoin maximalist, with the primary reason being that ideology often does not survive contact with reality.
(...)
This is all fine and well - I suppose he supports a hybrid model regarding supporting some basic fundamentals but embracing other perspectives - but this is the part that triggers me:However, I do not consider myself an ideological Bitcoin maximalist, with the primary reason being that ideology often does not survive contact with reality.
(...)
Quote
So, what should you do about inscriptions?
Just ignore them. More valuable use-cases will price out the majority of inscriptions. There will always be some high-value inscriptions, but they don't compete seriously with hard money and uncensorable transactions. Bitcoin's destiny is high fees. Embrace it.
I would very much would like to ignore Inscriptions but sadly I can't - Every now and then I am faced with 100 sat/vB fees if I want to make a payment of a couple of dollars to any kind of service. How can I choose to ignore them when they have a huge impact on the core functionality of Bitcoin?Just ignore them. More valuable use-cases will price out the majority of inscriptions. There will always be some high-value inscriptions, but they don't compete seriously with hard money and uncensorable transactions. Bitcoin's destiny is high fees. Embrace it.
[1]https://rodarmor.com/blog/ordinal-theory/
[2]https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102355.0
[3]https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=117224.0
[4]https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=117224.msg1273726#msg1273726
[5]https://rodarmor.com/blog/inscriptions-a-guide-for-the-ideological-maxi/
*He mispelled bitcointalk
(Bitocin??)