Ordinals Founder: Why Criticizing Inscription Only Diminishes You and Bitcoin’s Value?

Complaining about Inscription makes you and Bitcoin look weak.

Written by: Casey Rodarmor

Compiled by: Shenchao TechFlow

Casey Rodarmor, founder of the Bitcoin protocol Ordinals, wrote that the current paradigm of criticism of inscriptions is not wise enough. He hopes that Bitcoin extremists will put down their complaints about inscriptions and recommends that they ignore inscriptions because more valuable use cases will eliminate most of them in the future. . The following is a compilation of the full text.

If you ask me about my stance, my views are virtually indistinguishable from those of Bitcoin ideological extremists. I hate the state, have no respect for authority, and believe that Bitcoin is the path away from the degradation that fiat currencies have inflicted on our lives and civilization.

However, I do not consider myself an ideological Bitcoin maximalist, mainly because ideologies often do not survive contact with reality.

Ideological Bitcoin maximalism, and its accompanying culture of shallowness, are currently in an unpleasant position: in contact with a reality they do not correspond to.

This article contains advice for ideological Bitcoin extremists in the hope that it will help them stop self-inflicted and unforced errors. In other words, how to keep them from being losers.

First, let me say that this article is not written to defend Ordinals and Inscriptions. They need no defense. Things have happened, the inscription already exists, and no one can make the inscription die.

Now, on to the suggestions.

My first suggestion is that complaining about Inscription makes you and Bitcoin look weak. It is a contradictory view to believe that Bitcoin is the unstoppable Internet currency, but also to believe that publishing small pictures on the chain is retarded. We all know the fact that, under forced circumstances, the former is right and the latter is wrong. Bitcoin is the unstoppable internet currency, and the small picture on the chain is a non-issue. But if you support both views, you undermine any argument you have that Bitcoin can resist the state.

Despite the many complaints on Twitter, no one could do even a little damage to Oridinals and Inscriptions. So, given that we still have significant work to do in destroying fiat, maybe you should stop complaining about things you can’t change and adapt to the reality that on-chain little pictures have come to Bitcoin. There is no doubt that Inscription won’t be the last time people start doing unpleasant things on Bitcoin, so it would be a good exercise to start accepting Bitcoin now. You can then refocus your energy on more important things, like spreading the word about Satoshi and helping as many people as possible learn how to use Bitcoin.

Complaining about inscriptions will only make more people aware of them and make inscription developers more enthusiastic about developing inscriptions, just to make you look like fools. If regular people like to do something, you're not going to make any friends, or get ahead in anything, by scolding them for doing it.

If you still insist on complaining about the inscription, at least take the time to understand it so you can abandon your poor argument. These include:

• Anyone can right-click to save an NFT in JPEG form. Everyone who buys an inscription knows this, everyone. Accepting this and updating your worldview will bring it closer to reality. *The inscriptions are not real, they are just a collective illusion. I've basically been saying this since day one, I've been saying this since day one, Ordinals and Inscriptions are a selective lens through which to look at Bitcoin. If you think the inscription is some kind of devastating revelation about Bitcoin, it makes you look like an idiot. Furthermore, you misunderstand one of the most fundamental things about humanity, civilization, and culture: everything that matters is just social convention. In fact, Bitcoin is just a social convention. Or to put it another way, it’s not the software or the data that matters, but the social mores surrounding it. Inscriptions are no exception.
• You can store data off-chain. People value on-chain data, which makes inscriptions scarce and greatly improves reliability and user security. All other NFT ecosystems use off-chain data, and uninformed users entrust their trust to file custodians on IPFS, who may stop hosting at any time. And on-chain data greatly increases credibility, which is something that Bitcoin maximalists, as far as I know, highly value.
• Inscriptions are illegal. There's a clear difference between something illegal, like state violence, and something you think is stupid. Thinking something is illegal because you don't like it or understand its purpose makes you look like a retard.
• Inscription is an attack on Bitcoin. Somehow you see NFTs and shitcoins on other chains, understand that they exist because of passion, need, fraud, and depravity, don’t think these things are a state attack on Ethereum, and then turn around and think they are an attack on Bitcoin Nation-state attack on currency?

Trying to censor an inscription is exactly the same as trying to censor any other type of transaction. Any mechanism you create or public support you gain will immediately provide support for censoring Bitcoin. Luckily, processing transactions that are considered illegal is exactly the purpose of Bitcoin, so you'll eventually fail, but we'd all be better off if you didn't try to convince people that censoring Bitcoin transactions is something they should try.

So, what should you do with inscriptions?

Just ignore them. More valuable use cases will make most inscriptions lose their price advantage. There will always be some high-value inscriptions, but they don't compete with hard currency and unverifiable transactions. Bitcoin’s fate is high fees, embrace it.