Quote from: vjudeu on Today at 01:39:01 PM

Quote

I am 100% sure that if a more elegant model is designed for Bitcoin NFTs, it will be adopted in time.

It won't, because the main goal for Ordinals was not to make NFTs. Their goal was to turn Bitcoin into a cloud storage. It was never about "ownership", it was always about "pushing data". And before Ordinals, there existed many NFT platforms, so it was not a problem, to design a system, where by signing a Bitcoin key, you would own some NFT on another chain. We even have pay-to-sudoku, since 2016.

But if your goal is to push data instead, then you don't care about ownership, which is why Ordinals don't care, who owns a particular satoshi (because if they would care, then that information would be expressed directly, instead of rolling a dice, and betting that the client will order all inputs, outputs and amounts correctly).

Quote

When somebody doesn't like an "innovation" that people use, the rational thing to do is design it in a better way.

The only reason why Bitcoin users would care about Ordinals, is that they take down regular payments. If not that, then nobody would care. For example, imagine a scenario, where this forum would be used as a cloud storage, instead of being used as a forum. Or when people would trade things for merits. Then, the role of forum users is not to "design it in a better way", but to "get rid of the abuse". And if accessing regular threads would be stopped, because of spam, then it would be rational, to introduce some kind of filters, and banning the spammers, to stop the abuse.

And the same thing could happen in Bitcoin, but people didn't want to stop the spam, for some reason.

Quote

For some reason, laser eyes prefer to shout and cry in their podcasts, instead of creating the best version they can create that satisfies the market needs.

There are some mining pools, which censor Ordinals. There are also some users, which stopped using Taproot, because of Ordinals. You want NFTs on Bitcoin? Then put your NFT on some existing platform, designed for NFTs, and then use some hash-locked contract (or even point-locked contract, since Taproot is there), to buy or sell those things, if you really want. If you put every data on-chain instead, then you take the room, reserved for other payments, and then, everyone will pay more fees, because of that.

So, the problem is not technical anymore, since many solutions were proposed. But if users don't want to adopt those solutions, then what else can be done? If you abuse the system, and take down regular payments, then the only rational answer, is to censor some Ordinals, to process regular payments faster. Fortunately, many Ordinals are now confirming in testnet3 instead, so the mainnet can enjoy cheaper transactions, at least for a while.

I mean hey, if you had the majority of the market on the "censor txs side" I guess this is what would've happened. The way things are, it appears that the market likes Ordinals. Also, I don't think that Bitcoin is designed to prioritize some tx above any other. Bitcoin is made to blend in with the profit-driven market. If these transactions bring more fees, then these are Bitcoin's priorities. It doesn't matter what you like, and it doesn't matter which transactions we consider important. If spamming on this forum is what would bring it more profits, then guess what, you'd probably use this as a cloud storage.

Anyway, I'm not a hard supporter of inscriptions. Rare sats do not require any on-chain information and do not clog the network with anything. Also, there's no other standard for rare sats other than the one established by Ordinals theory (which is a fairly decent one).