Freedom of expression
The president of bitcoin magazine, Mike Germano, challenged me to publish this rant with the following meme:
For all the haters, yes, even in bitcoin magazine free debate can flourish. I appreciate the opportunity to present a dissenting opinion on ordinals. With technical editor Shinobi at the helm, writers' contributions are permissionless!
About technical feats
I appreciate bitcoin magazine editor Pete Rizzo's posts detailing the entire history of bitcoin, but he is morally wrong on Ordinals, just as he was on ethereum Merge:
While the merger was a great technical feat for ethereum, the move to Proof-of-Stake only made it even less decentralized. And with twitter.com/rodarmor”>casey technical feat of Ordinals, also harms bitcoin by making it less fungible.
About Peter McCormack bitcoin-did-with-peter-mccormack/id1317356120?i=1000642787562″>What did bitcoin do? In the podcast, Pete Rizzo argued that “at worst, people who own ordinals at least own some bitcoin.”
No. The worst case scenario is that people realize they have been scammed and never want to touch bitcoin again.
About how to make money
Some try to argue that investing Ordinals for profit is not a scam, but simply people willingly betting on speculation. Likewise, many people bought bitcoin at the top of the 2021 cycle without having done any research and have not touched bitcoin since realizing the losses. Speculators buy Ordinals for the same reason they buy bitcoins: to make money.
However, on this issue, bitcoin Maxis' position is clear:
bitcoin is not an intangible asset that suffers the same Big fool's theory as ordinals. Two significant ways that saving in bitcoin contrasts with gambling in Ordinals are network effects and actual limited supply. Many copycat altcoins have been issued, but none have the network effects of the OG. Additionally, most altcoins go live via Proof of Stake, with minimal physical cost for further issuance. bitcoin is only issued through proof of work, giving real weight and staying power to its value.
The bitcoin Maxis who are here to fix money, know that we do not buy bitcoin to make money, but to fix the world.
About rare collections
In What bitcoin Did, McCormack argues that no one is buying Ordinals to cash them out. Some Ordinals supporters have deluded themselves into thinking that while most are trying to change, some are actually cashing in. The prestigious art auction house Sotheby's held an auction of ordinal works in January 2024, but putting your brand behind this “collection” does not mean it is.
I admit that whether I am morally opposed or not does not change the fact that there are people who find value in collecting worthless things. Some may argue that Sotheby's is not scamming anyone if they are willing to buy digital art. However, it is a scam because they don't buy digital art because they don't actually own anything. I can add the same digital art to any transaction. It is only because of their shared illusion that by using the ordinal protocol, like their peers, the digital art they own in their transaction is more valued than the digital art in mine.
What I will NOT support is the notion that ordinals and nfts are not arbitrary; they are. I can take the jpeg of each Quantum Cat, repost the same collection of 3000 cats, and tell people that mine don't cost 0.1 bitcoin each, but only 0.0001 bitcoin each. so cheap. Much better treatment!! There's nothing strange or special about it. Do people want to pay Udi or Sotheby's 0.1 bitcoin to own the Sat address of the cat in their collection, or the same cat in mine? In fact, a copycat collection has already been created trying to do just that, called Quantum Rats.
Of course, adding other collections isn't as straightforward as diluting the supply of an existing one, but it's pretty close. If a collection starts small and becomes so expensive that the creators make a separate but similar collection for the purpose of making it available to more people, it's really just to rip off more people. It's a moral judgment, but ordinals don't uphold the values of a bitcoin maximalist. bitcoin has a finite supply of 21 million, but there is no limit to the number of Ordinal collections that can be created. Next, Udi could release “mutant” quantum cats, or “boring” quantum cats, which become more popular and make the originals worthless.
That's the scam. That's the attraction.
The formula for pulling the rug is simple: Start a “weird” collection, liven it up with wash swaps with yourself and influencers, then let some sucker hold the bag.
Then do it again and again and again.
bitcoin could also succumb to the “greater fool theory” but the difference is the network effect that has made bitcoin survive unlike any other pump and dump crypto.
About ownership of digital art
On the contrary, the possession of digital art does exist: intellectual property exists. I can pay for the cover art, so I own the art for bitcoin Girl: Save the World. I own the files and make the merchandise. If anyone tries to sell physical products with digital art that I own, then they are infringing copyright.
Think of all the digital files or character art in every Pixar video game or animated film. Digital art rights exist, they are real and can be used to make new films or products.
About filtering and censorship
I'm not trying to filter ordinals or censor transactions, but I think supporting ordinals is wrong. For bitcoin to be successful, it must be money for enemies. However, bitcoin Maxis should continue to advocate for people to do their own research.
Scammers are always going to scam but I'm not going to support them. I'll still allow it, although fortunately ordinals don't need my permission anyway.
I'm not trying to break bitcoin by adding filters or censorship, but I can still object.
Hodlonaut succinctly expressed my position on ordinals:
Thank you bitcoin Magazine for allowing me to rant against ordinals!
This is a guest post by Will Schoellkopf. The opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of btc Inc or bitcoin Magazine.
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js” charset=”utf-8″>
