A Rant Against Ordinals

About freedom of speech

Mike Germano, president of Bitcoin Magazine, encouraged me to publish this rant using the following meme:

sauce: https://x.com/mikegermano/status/1773003239312503243?s=20

For all the haters out there, yes, there can be plenty of free discussion at Bitcoin Magazine as well. Thank you for the opportunity to submit your objections to Ordinals. Technical editor Shinobi takes the helm, and writers’ contributions are made without permission.

About technological feats

I appreciate Bitcoin Magazine editor Pete Rizzo’s post detailing the entire history of Bitcoin, but it’s just as morally wrong about ordinal numbers as it was about the Ethereum merge.

sauce: https://x.com/pete_rizzo_/status/1570383464360251398?s=20

While the merge was a great technological feat for Ethereum, the switch to proof-of-stake has only made it even less decentralized. and, Casey’s While Ordinals’ technical feat, he also damaged Bitcoin by making it less fungible.

About Peter McCormack what did bitcoin do Pete Rizzo of the podcast argued that “in the worst case scenario, the people who own ordinal numbers will at least end up owning Bitcoin.”

No, the worst case scenario is that people realize they have been scammed and never want to touch Bitcoin again.

about making money

Some defend that flipping ordinal numbers for profit is not a scam, but simply people willing to speculate. Similarly, many people bought Bitcoin at the top of the 2021 cycle without doing any research and haven’t touched Bitcoin since realizing their losses. Speculators buy Ordinal for the same reasons they buy Bitcoin. In other words, to make money.

However, Bitcoin Maxis’ position on this issue is clear.

Bitcoin is not an intangible asset that is similarly affected great fool theory as an ordinal number. Two meaningful ways to save with Bitcoin compared to gambling on Ordinal are network effects and real limited supply. Many copycat altcoins have been launched, but none have the network effect of OG. Furthermore, most altcoins are airdropped through proof-of-stake, with little physical cost to issue more. Bitcoin is only issued via proof of work, putting real weight and staying power behind its value.

Bitcoin Maxis, here to fix money, know that we don’t buy Bitcoin to make money, we buy it to fix the world.

About rare collection

Regarding “what Bitcoin did,” McCormack claims that no one is actually buying Ordinal to collect it. Some Ordinals supporters have fooled themselves enough to think that some are actually collecting when most are trying to flip. Respected art auction house Sotheby’s held an auction for the Ordinal in January 2024, but putting its brand behind this “collection” is anything but.

https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2024/natively-digital-an-ordinals-curated-sale

Whether I am morally opposed to it or not, the fact remains that there are people who find value in collecting worthless things. Some people who are willing to buy digital art might argue that Sotheby’s is not scamming them. However, this is a scam because they are not buying digital art because they don’t actually own anything. Add the same digital art to any transaction. By using the same normal protocols they are simply sharing the delusion that the digital art they own in the transaction is worth more than my digital art.

What I don’t accept is the notion that ordinal numbers and NFTs are not arbitrary. Get JPEGs of all Quantum Cats and re-release the same 3000 cat collection and tell people my cats cost only 0.0001 Bitcoin per cat instead of 0.1 Bitcoin per cat can do. So cheap. Much better deal!! Nothing unusual or special. Would a person want to pay Udi or Sotheby’s his 0.1 Bitcoin to own a cat in his collection, or even an address to a satellite of the same cat in my collection? A copycat collection has already been created. quantum rat.

sauce: https://twitter.com/mononautical/status/1749981929955373546

Of course, adding other collections isn’t as direct as diluting the supply of existing collections, but it’s close enough. If a collection starts small and becomes too expensive, and the creator creates another similar collection with the intention of making it available to a larger number of people, it may actually become more expensive. You’re just cheating. Although this is a moral judgment, Ordinal does not support Bitcoin maximalist values. Although the supply of Bitcoin is limited to 21 million, there is no limit to the number of Ordinal collections that can be created. Udi could then release a “mutant” quantity kitten, or a “bored” quantity kitten. These will become popular and all originals will become worthless.

That’s fraud. That’s rug pull.

The rug pull formula is simple. Start a “Rare” collection, promote it on your own or with wash trades with influencers, and then leave the suckers holding your bags.

Then repeat it over and over again.

Bitcoin could also succumb to the “Great Fool Theory,” but unlike other pump-and-dump cryptos, the network effects that have allowed it to survive are different.

About ownership of digital art

On the contrary, owning digital art does exist, and intellectual property does exist. I own the art for “Bitcoin Girl: Save the World” so I can pay to design the cover art. I own the files, and I also make the goods. If someone tries to sell a physical product using digital art that I own, it is copyright infringement.

sauce: https://www.amazon.com/Bitcoin-Girl-Save-World-Dog/dp/B0BS8XB72K/

sauce: https://www.realbitcoindogmerch.com/

Think about all the digital files and character art in every video game and every Pixar animated movie. Digital art rights exist, are real, and can be used to create new films and products.

About filtering and censorship

I don’t intend to exclude ordinals or censor transactions, but I think supporting ordinals is wrong. For Bitcoin to be successful, it needs to be money to the enemy. But Bitcoin Maxis still needs to advocate for people to do their own research.

Scammers scam all the time, but I’m not going to stand for that. In any case, thankfully ordinal numbers don’t need my permission, but I’ll grant it anyway.

I’m not trying to destroy Bitcoin by adding filtering or censorship, but you can still disagree.

Hodlonaut succinctly states my position on ordinal numbers.

sauce: https://twitter.com/hodlonaut/status/1751677477762617595?s=46&t=AJLfWYMcFR4tAoyfIomXHw

Thanks to Bitcoin Magazine for letting me rant against ordinal numbers!

This is a guest post Will Schelkopf. The opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of his BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

Related Article

0 Comments

Leave a Comment