NFTs in the Bitcoin blockchain - Ordinal Theory

[Ico.best]

I think it's usually useless to debate motivations: either it's unambiguous, in which case there is no debate... or it's not and there will be no resolution.  Ultimately what matters is what people do, not what motivates them.  If something is explainable as confusion or benign greed, it's prudent to stick with that assumption until facts show otherwise both because it's more likely to be true but also because it has less collateral damage if you're wrong.

As far as the quote--  Your guess is as good as mine as to the intended tone, it's probably a mistake to assume much about it.  It can be extremely difficult to figure out the correct tone from text,  something I know all too well as someone who writes messages intended to sound playful but get received by many as a particularly forceful sermon.  

That said, It's easy to be popular with almost any identifiable clique:  Just yell the party lines louder than other people, hate on the right enemies, cheer on the right heros.  So much so that excessive popularity with an identifiable group can be a red-flag:  People who are genuine will usually have some unpopular opinions, they'll usually have better things to do with their time than sing from the hymn book all day long.   Bitcoin and the adjacent altcoin ecosystems have been full of bad actors using the popularity play book: Even early on many of the top rated OTC participants were scammers.  Plenty of loud twitter voices promoting Bitcoin turned out to only doing it to form a following to sell their scamcoin to... even Craig Wright totally suckered a big swath of large block bitcoiners[1] by saying what they wanted to hear. ([1] whom I disagreed with, but at least the general position was one a (confused) person could honestly adopt... not a con, but Wright managed to turn many people into con-co-conspirators by playing to their biases)

This isn't to say that disagreeable people are more trustworthy,  I think the compulsively disagreeable are even more likely to be bad actors.  There really just isn't a magic formula to figure out good motivations from bad.  But we don't have to-- unless you're shopping for a spouse you don't need to worry about judging people, just consider their actions and your responses.

Debating motivation is just a matter of psychology in my opinion, and it won't change anything. In the end, everything still comes back to each individual's thinking.

It's really quite apprehensive about the current conditions, moreover, they are taking advantage of the popularity they get just to build a shitcoin for their own benefit. But I think this is predictable, and this is also very influential for people who are just starting out in the crypto world and I think not a few have experienced worse conditions than their previous finances.

Because there is no experience and basic knowledge for further research, this is actually detrimental for projects that want to run right. Because the level of popularity of shitcoin is even higher now.

[1714237220]

1714237220

[1714237220]

1714237220

[1714237220]

1714237220

[1714237220]

1714237220

[1714237220]

1714237220

[Wind_FURY]

Another shower thought. I'm not starting an ideological debate. I'm merely pointing out a possible practical "benefit" from Ordinals from a viewpoint of incentivization and for the network to keep chugging along.

 

Leave Ordinals alone, and allow it to exist as a "necessary evil" in the coming event when block rewards would not be enough to incentivize miners to keep securing the network. Thinking from what currently is going on, people who use Bitcoin for financial transactions are not really willing to pay for high fees. But the users who inscribe and trade their NFTs do. So unless users are willing to use Bitcoin for their daily transactions everyday and in every way, and more importantly, also be willing to "tip the miner", then we can't do anything but accept Ordinals to be a part of the network.

Let's take aside the fact that NFTs are "junk", let's put our ideologies at the back seat, and try to look at the fact that the fees from financial transactions alone won't secure the network.

[stompix]

Let's take aside the fact that NFTs are "junk", let's put our ideologies at the back seat, and try to look at the fact that the fees from financial transactions alone won't secure the network.

Oh, but they can! The only thing is that you need more than 500 000 a day, if we look at block 788766 which had nearly the same fee/reward ratio you will see the median fee was 20$. So in order to get the same revenue that would guarantee the same level of protection you will need to have 4000 users paying on average $20 since the reward is gone.
OR!!!! You could have 40 000 and pay $2. Or 80 000 pay $1.

But that would imply every node would need to spend $100 on a 2 TB SSD, so let's go with a $20 per tx cause it's cheaper!
 

[Wind_FURY]

Let's take aside the fact that NFTs are "junk", let's put our ideologies at the back seat, and try to look at the fact that the fees from financial transactions alone won't secure the network.

Oh, but they can! The only thing is that you need more than 500 000 a day, if we look at block 788766 which had nearly the same fee/reward ratio you will see the median fee was 20$. So in order to get the same revenue that would guarantee the same level of protection you will need to have 4000 users paying on average $20 since the reward is gone.
OR!!!! You could have 40 000 and pay $2. Or 80 000 pay $1.

But that would imply every node would need to spend $100 on a 2 TB SSD, so let's go with a $20 per tx cause it's cheaper!
 

I didn't debate about if it can or cannot. I am saying that based on normal network activity for onchain financial transactions we're seeing today, it can't.

Leave Ordinals alone, and allow it to exist as a "necessary evil" in the coming event when block rewards would not be enough to incentivize miners to keep securing the network.

1. Would Ordinals and other method to store arbitary data on-chain remain popular after next few halving?

I don't know. Probably? Especially during bull cycles when everyone goes crazy investing in anything? There's no better blockchain to store/secure NFTs than the Bitcoin blockchain.

2. On long term, would usage of Ordinals have good impact on Bitcoin price?

The question perhaps should be, "Would Ordinals usage increase and therefore increase the demand for block space"? If the answer is "Yes", then I believe the demand for Bitcoin would also increase.

Thinking from what currently is going on, people who use Bitcoin for financial transactions are not really willing to pay for high fees.

And why would people do that when the fee could be >2% of amount they're going to send?

That's the point, because Ordinals users won't mind paying for high fees to inscribe or trade their NFTs.

[stompix]

If only bigger maximum block size only lead to bigger storage requirement.

And to what other requirements? Ram, internet speed? Should we also compare those to the Satoshi era?
Centralization because people can't afford to run a node when we're talking about ASICs in the thousands of $ that are close to not even working in a normal house without modifications to the breaker and powerlines?

I'm genuinely curious about what is so threatening about increasing the size by a factor of 2 or 4 for example.
I've yet to hear an argument about how doubling or quadrupling the size of the blocks will be a bigger threat than the spam attack that turns users away, the centralizations of mining pools of farms, the near monopoly in mining gear production, the already enormous percentage of nodes hosted in data centers, and so on and on!

I didn't debate about if it can or cannot. I am saying that based on normal network activity for onchain financial transactions we're seeing today, it can't.

And isn't it ironic that we like to compare the penetration of Bitcoin to the Internet, smartphones, tv, etc and we tend to forget every single one of them become widespread when it became affordable for the average Joe? Much unlike a 20$ tx!

[ABCbits]

2. On long term, would usage of Ordinals have good impact on Bitcoin price?

The question perhaps should be, "Would Ordinals usage increase and therefore increase the demand for block space"? If the answer is "Yes", then I believe the demand for Bitcoin would also increase.

Another question, "Would high fees (caused by usage of Ordinals and other similar protocol) lead to decreased usage of Bitcoin on another aspect (buy goods, paid for service, etc.)?"

If only bigger maximum block size only lead to bigger storage requirement.

And to what other requirements? Ram, internet speed? Should we also compare those to the Satoshi era?
Centralization because people can't afford to run a node when we're talking about ASICs in the thousands of $ that are close to not even working in a normal house without modifications to the breaker and powerlines?

I'm genuinely curious about what is so threatening about increasing the size by a factor of 2 or 4 for example.
I've yet to hear an argument about how doubling or quadrupling the size of the blocks will be a bigger threat than the spam attack that turns users away, the centralizations of mining pools of farms, the near monopoly in mining gear production, the already enormous percentage of nodes hosted in data centers, and so on and on!

1. I'm actually in favor of maximum block size increase, as long as it's NOT based on arbitrary number or very high increment (e.g. 4 million weight unit to 100MB).
2. Other requirements? Aside from what you mentioned, i could think storage I/O, CPU speed and internet latency.
3. Miner generally don't run full node and mining pool definitely can afford very fast computer/server. The concern lies within individual and small group who want to run full node.

[cryptosize]

I'm genuinely curious about what is so threatening about increasing the size by a factor of 2 or 4 for example.
I've yet to hear an argument about how doubling or quadrupling the size of the blocks will be a bigger threat than the spam attack that turns users away, the centralizations of mining pools of farms, the near monopoly in mining gear production, the already enormous percentage of nodes hosted in data centers, and so on and on!

Aren't the blocks already 2-4 times bigger thanks to the latest updates (SegWit, Taproot)?

[larry_vw_1955]

I'm genuinely curious about what is so threatening about increasing the size by a factor of 2 or 4 for example.
I've yet to hear an argument about how doubling or quadrupling the size of the blocks will be a bigger threat than the spam attack that turns users away, the centralizations of mining pools of farms, the near monopoly in mining gear production, the already enormous percentage of nodes hosted in data centers, and so on and on!

Aren't the blocks already 2-4 times bigger thanks to the latest updates (SegWit, Taproot)?

if all the transactions are legacy, then the block can be 1MB max.  so it's not across the board...

[BlackHatCoiner]

I'm genuinely curious about what is so threatening about increasing the size by a factor of 2 or 4 for example.

Simply put: it isn't worth it.

So you're about to risk ruining a half-trillion project (at the time or writing this), opening up the Pandora box of a debate that broke Bitcoin in half already once (and in multiple small pieces), completely ignoring the mountainous history of second layers, breaking backwards-compatibility, prioritizing the short-term in a project whose success comes from long-term conservatism... And all that to... Quadruple the on-chain transactions? What when that will neither be enough? Will you start over?

Full nodes operators needing an extra terabyte disk is the last concern of mine if such thing was ever going to happen.

[Wind_FURY]

And isn't it ironic that we like to compare the penetration of Bitcoin to the Internet, smartphones, tv, etc and we tend to forget every single one of them become widespread when it became affordable for the average Joe?

By "we", you mean who? I don't think everyone has the same definition, opinion or understanding of Bitcoin. Bitcoin for some people, and the way it's designed, is a kind of tool that can weaken and break down political strongholds, not a tool for personal finance like PayPal.

Much unlike a 20$ tx!

Please pardon me, what's the context of that? Can you explain the $20.00 tx reference and how it connects to widespread penetration of smartphones, TV, and other electronic goods?

2. On long term, would usage of Ordinals have good impact on Bitcoin price?

The question perhaps should be, "Would Ordinals usage increase and therefore increase the demand for block space"? If the answer is "Yes", then I believe the demand for Bitcoin would also increase.

Another question, "Would high fees (caused by usage of Ordinals and other similar protocol) lead to decreased usage of Bitcoin on another aspect (buy goods, paid for service, etc.)?"

It would definitely lead to decreased usage of Bitcoin for financial transactions onchain, which could be pushed offchain, leaving Ordinals users the more willing onchain participants to pay for the high fees that the miners require to secure the network.

[stompix]

So you're about to risk ruining a half-trillion project (at the time or writing this), opening up the Pandora box of a debate that broke Bitcoin in half already once (and in multiple small pieces), completely ignoring the mountainous history of second layers, breaking backwards-compatibility, prioritizing the short-term in a project whose success comes from long-term conservatism... And all that to... Quadruple the on-chain transactions?

Are we both talking about the trillion project that was under terrorist attack and faced extinction when confronted by some jpg meme?
Also, how is increasing the blocksize breaking backward compatibility?

Full nodes operators needing an extra terabyte disk is the last concern of mine if such thing was ever going to happen.

But what is really the concern then?
Cause we see, the only real concern was that for nearly a month it was so damn expensive to make a tx on the blockchain that many users ended up saying it's better not to use Bitcoin for a while and switch to some shitcoin. If hundreds of pages of people screaming about high fees is not a concern bigger than the price of 1TB of storage, then I must have a completely different view of what "global adoption" and  "usage" mean and also I probably lack the imagination needed how this global adoption will happen with under 500k tx a day. Or 0.15% of the population of the US.

By "we", you mean who?

This community here that has posted the graph on Bitcoin adoption vs others a million times on this forum!

Can you explain the $20.00 tx reference and how it connects to widespread penetration of smartphones, TV, and other electronic goods?

Miners protect the network because they get the block reward, when there will be no block reward they will rely on fees, right now, we had an instance where the fees from the transactions were the same as the block reward, in that block the median fee was around 20$.
So to get the same level of protection for the network in the future as we have now, that will have to be at least the average, 24/7, forever!

[BlackHatCoiner]

Are we both talking about the trillion project that was under terrorist attack and faced extinction when confronted by some jpg meme?

Terrorist attack? Lol. You mean that the immutable, decentralized, censorship-resistant, borderless Internet currency suddenly lost all its value because you had to pay an extra dollar as fee? Is that all the value you see? Abrupt fee raise, and suddenly worthless?

Also, how is increasing the blocksize breaking backward compatibility?

If you broadcast an 8 MB sized block at the moment you'll have it rejected, because anything beyond 4 MB is invalid. Validating previous invalid rules requires a hard fork. A hard fork means to break backwards compatibility. (unless you find a way to do this with soft fork; in that case, I'm all ears)

But what is really the concern then?

I told you the concern. You simply don't believe it's worth paying an extra dollar (in the short term) to maintain the current conservative status quo as it stands.

If hundreds of pages of people screaming about high fees is not a concern bigger than the price of 1TB of storage, then I must have a completely different view of what "global adoption" and  "usage" mean and also I probably lack the imagination needed how this global adoption will happen with under 500k tx a day. Or 0.15% of the population of the US.

If hundreds of pages of academic research, thousands of hours dedicated to discussions, envisioning, and coding of second layer solutions, and the numerous forks of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Litecoin that failed to make progress by simply increasing the block size limit arbitrarily – if all of these do not provide evidence that global adoption cannot be achieved by tinkering with the block size, then I am at a loss for words.

[Wind_FURY]

By "we", you mean who?

This community here that has posted the graph on Bitcoin adoption vs others a million times on this forum!

Can you explain the $20.00 tx reference and how it connects to widespread penetration of smartphones, TV, and other electronic goods?

Miners protect the network because they get the block reward, when there will be no block reward they will rely on fees, right now, we had an instance where the fees from the transactions were the same as the block reward, in that block the median fee was around 20$.

So to get the same level of protection for the network in the future as we have now, that will have to be at least the average, 24/7, forever!

OK, I misunderstood your other post. In reply to that, I can't disagree with your viewpoint. But the design decisions made by Satoshi is what we have. Were there some things that he should have made different? Perhaps, like having a tail emission or something to continue incentivizing the miners in times of low block space demand. But that's a debate for another topic.

[stompix]

Abrupt fee raise, and suddenly worthless?

Value isn't the same as usability, gold is valuable but you don't see people sending gold via pigeons to Amazon.
A lot depends on what you think Bitcoin was supposed to fix, and Bitcoin making 100x gains might not be the only thing some thought it's a good idea, maybe some thought of it as an alternative to other things. When the continuous growth will flatten what will be the attractivity if not cheaper borderless uncensored usage?

If you broadcast an 8 MB sized block at the moment you'll have it rejected, because anything beyond 4 MB is invalid. Validating previous invalid rules requires a hard fork. A hard fork means to break backwards compatibility. (unless you find a way to do this with soft fork; in that case, I'm all ears)

Nodes only have to validate blocks on the rules since the moment of the change, since there is no running chain with more work that has invalid blocks by the previous rules that become valid right now where would the problem be? Reducing the size would trigger incompatibility, all the previously mined blocks would still be valid under an 8 or 16 MB rule.

If hundreds of pages of academic research, thousands of hours dedicated to discussions, envisioning, and coding of second layer solutions, and the numerous forks of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Litecoin that failed to make progress by simply increasing the block size limit arbitrarily – if all of these do not provide evidence that global adoption cannot be achieved by tinkering with the block size, then I am at a loss for words.

Hundreds of academic research mean nothing when you have to put food on the table, just as nobody gives a crap about the world ending in a climate catastrophe when the only way to go to work is by driving a wheeled furnace, or whatever the name of vw models is right now! Few care about academic research when they have to pay 100sat/b or wait for one month till the fees go down!

I don't know how the hell you arrived at the conclusion that just because Litecoin offers more transaction capacity and hasn't been able to go global automatically means Bitcoin shouldn't do that if it wants to go global! Let's do the opposite then, put a limit of 1kb and a block every month, that should lead to universal adoption!
But ok, I can't wait for 2040 when I have a 512 terrabyte smartphone, I can live stream in 1024 over 100Tbs but the blocks will still be the same cause 1MB of memory block size will be enough for anybody!

But the design decisions made by Satoshi is what we have.

We've taken a piss so many times on the original design that even a dump now won't be noticed! 

[BlackHatCoiner]

When the continuous growth will flatten what will be the attractivity if not cheaper borderless uncensored usage?

People are already working on that. Maybe not as much as it should, but they do. Until then, you're required to pay an extra buck. The inherent nature of things should make it clear that achieving universal satisfaction is impossible. It is unrealistic to expect a payment network to be simultaneously free-of-charge, uncensored, decentralized, and immutable, without any drawbacks that I cannot even think of.

There are tradeoffs we deal with. If you prioritize transaction cost, use banks. If you prioritize anonymity, use physical cash. If you prioritize the ability to send money via the Internet, in an censorship resilient and borderless fashion use Bitcoin.

Reducing the size would trigger incompatibility, all the previously mined blocks would still be valid under an 8 or 16 MB rule.

Prior-version nodes will reject the new blocks, while post-version nodes will continue normally. That is the definition of a hard fork.

Hundreds of academic research mean nothing when you have to put food on the table, just as nobody gives a crap about the world ending in a climate catastrophe when the only way to go to work is by driving a wheeled furnace, or whatever the name of vw models is right now!

So you're going to dismiss all that research, and assert that there isn't a scaling solution other than tinkering with the block size limit?

Few care about academic research when they have to pay 100sat/b or wait for one month till the fees go down!

And apparently[1][2][3] even fewer are so naive, to use what dismisses all that research of how Bitcoin is proposed to work.

[1] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin-cash/
[2] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin-sv/
[3] <insert other hard fork crap>

[stompix]

When the continuous growth will flatten what will be the attractivity if not cheaper borderless uncensored usage?

People are already working on that. Maybe not as much as it should, but they do. Until then, you're required to pay an extra buck. The inherent nature of things should make it clear that achieving universal satisfaction is impossible. It is unrealistic to expect a payment network to be simultaneously free-of-charge, uncensored, decentralized, and immutable, without any drawbacks that I cannot even think of.

Required! Man, this sounds like the bank telling me to pay the 10$ card maintenance or fuck off!
Still haven't told me the major drawback of rising the block size to 4MB or 8 MB.
What element or property of Bitcoin would be in danger and what is the major threat?

There are tradeoffs we deal with. If you prioritize transaction cost, use banks. If you prioritize anonymity, use physical cash. If you prioritize the ability to send money via the Internet, in an censorship resilient and borderless fashion use Bitcoin.

I hope Satoshi is still alive otherwise he would be the first human to die twice, the second from rolling in his grave!
But again, how will 4MB blocks stop Bitcoin from being censorship resilient and borderless?

Prior-version nodes will reject the new blocks, while post-version nodes will continue normally. That is the definition of a hard fork.

We were talking about backwards compatibility! You're talking about old nodes rejecting new blocks!
Every single new node will still see the old chain as valid, that's backward when the new system can operate with the older one!

[1] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin-cash/
[2] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin-sv/
[3] <insert other hard fork crap>

[1] Bitcoin Transactions last 24h   428,070
[2] Dogecoin Transactions last 24h 478,009
[3] Ethereum Transactions last 24h 1,063,142

I copy-pasted your numbers so I might have got the ranking messed up   But anyhow, having more transactions in a day is irrelevant to global adoption, right? What matters is the market cap!!! /s How stupid of me!

[HmmMAA]

I don't think everyone has the same definition, opinion or understanding of Bitcoin. Bitcoin for some people, and the way it's designed, is a kind of tool that can weaken and break down political strongholds, not a tool for personal finance like PayPal.

If i'm not mistaken the whitepaper mentions bitcoin as a peer to peer electronic cash . And how have you come up to the conclusion that bitcoin can weaken and breakdown political strongholds ? By buying senators like Max Keiser said ? That's what bitcoin has become ? A means to create another caste to rule the world ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bh3ObPjcFE&t=52s
I think that you are the one that have a different definition and understanding of what bitcoin is . Try read the whitepaper to understand why bitcoin was invented .

I'd like you to point me to any post that satoshi makes such a political statement .

[BlackHatCoiner]

Required! Man, this sounds like the bank telling me to pay the 10$ card maintenance or fuck off!

That is the law of demand and supply of block capacity directly speaking.

Still haven't told me the major drawback of rising the block size to 4MB or 8 MB.

I have already told you. It's the same drawback as to why enhancing the privacy on the protocol might not be worth it: maintaining conservative approach. Mess around with backwards compatibility, do reckless experiments for the sake of progression, and you just have a new toy in the grand computer software collection that ultimately failed.

Just to clarify, so you don't ask me again: The extra storage that the node operators will need to possess isn't the issue per se. The issue lies in the notion of breaking backwards compatibility to enjoy some short-term relaxation, despite the immeasurable mountain of evidence that suggests otherwise in a provably successful conservative approach.

You're talking about old nodes rejecting new blocks!

Backwards compatible software means to run two instances of it, and ensure that both can seamlessly communicate and interact with each other. When prior-version and post-version nodes have a mismatch in their chain, it indicates that something has broken along the way.


By the way, I see you keep mentioning global adoption. You do know it can't work without second layers unless the chain weights a VISA data center, right?

[cryptosize]

Maybe in the future we could have an omnipotent & unbiased A(G)I (not ChatGPT) and ask it what's the best solution to scale Bitcoin...

But even an AI won't be able to change BTC's consensus rules... well, unless it's an uber advanced SkyNet-like AI that has captured the computation devices of the entire world.

Then maybe it could rewrite the rules itself in the most efficient manner, but the humanity would face an existential crisis (far bigger problem than destroying BTC).

Human beings will never agree on changing BTC's consensus rules, so arguing seems pointless IMHO.

[JayJuanGee]

I don't think everyone has the same definition, opinion or understanding of Bitcoin. Bitcoin for some people, and the way it's designed, is a kind of tool that can weaken and break down political strongholds, not a tool for personal finance like PayPal.

If i'm not mistaken the whitepaper mentions bitcoin as a peer to peer electronic cash . And how have you come up to the conclusion that bitcoin can weaken and breakdown political strongholds ? By buying senators like Max Keiser said ? That's what bitcoin has become ? A means to create another caste to rule the world ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bh3ObPjcFE&t=52s
I think that you are the one that have a different definition and understanding of what bitcoin is . Try read the whitepaper to understand why bitcoin was invented .

I'd like you to point me to any post that satoshi makes such a political statement .

Of course there is some truth in what Keiser says both in regards to fiats going to zero and also in terms of bitcoiners gaining more and more power with the passage of time, but he's also exaggerating (parody right) certain kinds of points. 

There are transitions and battles along the way (and even currently), and surely bitcoin is for friends and for enemies and can be used in any way that people want within the parameters of current consensus rules, and if they are able to convince (in order to gain consensus) to change the rules to their advantage, then bitcoin can be used in other ways too - yet with the passage of time, we have witnessed that bitcoin is becoming more and more difficult to change - at least in terms of some of the more steadfast principles, yet there have been ways that softforks have been created and adopted and there have been ways that people have learned to build systems within the existing rules, whether upon second layer or seemingly first layer with the ordinals and inscriptions and other ways that innovations have come from already existing rules.

There is no need to appeal to the white paper or to what Satoshi thought or what he might have thought, even though surely the way that Satoshi put bitcoin into play did set up some ground expectations - and some of those set ups continue to be true, yet people still can use bitcoin how they like, whether they believe it to be a way to store value or ways to transfer (transact) value or even other ways, and we do not even need to agree regarding how many bitcoin that we believe that we need to store (stack up) as compared to other things that we might invest into, and still it does seem that with the passage of time value is going to continue to gravitate into bitcoin, even if we do not necessarily agree how bitcoin can be used or should be used, and some folks will advantage more than others in terms of the extent to which they stacked sats and invested their time and energies into bitcoin, and figured out how to balance their spending of lesser valued assets first.. such as fiat and other investments that they might make that still might retain value (perhaps some of that utility value and some of that resale value.. and some assets have expenses involved with them....)

We cannot live inside of a bitcoin, even though we can buy property with some or all of our bitcoin.. and we can buy property with fiat too.. but then where are we going to store our value and in what proportions?  How about equities, commodities or the creation of a business?  That's up to each of us, no?

Even with bitcoin, we might find that we have various ways that we might be able to transact with it, and sometimes it might be cumbersome to figure out how to use (and who accepts it and in what form) - or we might not know how to put our bitcoin into wallets that we might be able to control the transaction fees (coin control and other mechanisms), and if we are trying to use lightning network to save fees, we might have some difficulties with wallets that might have difficulties during stress periods (such as some of the troubles that Muun found itself in during the earlier parts of this year.. I am not sure if they fixed their issues because I do not use their wallet),

...and it is NOT necessarily easy to learn these things - including that we might also have had been getting attacked by Blackrock (and like status quo financial entities teaming up with government institutions.. maybe not an exact coordination, but some kind of coordination seeming to be going on) in the coming years, if Black Rock's ETF (or whatever) product gets approved and they start to purchase a lot of BTC on behalf of their clients, but their clients don't even have abilities to control "their" coins that Blackrock is holding... Then we have already seen how some of those big institutions (we might see it with Greyscale and GBTC) retain various ways that they had been able to lock up bitcoin and to control bitcoin (at least the ones they locked up) that might not exactly had been consensual from the clients who might not have had know what kind of a product that they are getting into.

Sometimes we might not even realize the ways that bitcoin is being attacked - and the mere fact that the chain is being used by NFT aficionados causes use cases on bitcoin and causes on chain fees to rise, but still seems to be within current rules and does not even seem to be creating any kind of emergency to fix (even though some bitcoiners act like there is an emergency, and perhaps the creation of an emergency is a kind of an attack) - even though at the same time, we cannot always know the extent to which bitcoin fees are going to adjust in ways that still incentivizes use and incentivizes miners to mine it.. currently and into the future..

It surely is good to be having on chain bitcoin use cases (such as ordinals/inscriptions), even if we might not agree with some of the newly created use cases, and even if some of them might be attacks that in their current state don't seem likely to be successful.. if there are efforts to make bitcoin weaker, just like Blackrock is not necessarily going to be successful in its attacks on bitcoin, but no one can really stop Blackrock and the government to team up to try to attack bitcoin and to attempt to cause more paper bitcoin and to lure people into paper bitcoin..

I have me doubts about Blackrock's abilities to control bitcoin, even though  they seem to be wanting to try to do that if they get their ETF, and in in the short term, we are going to witness various differences of opinion and different ways of trying to use bitcoin whether we are referring to Blackrock and the government or if we are referring to Ordinals/inscriptions that some of us might not agree with those uses of bitcoin, but there may be difficulties in terms of stopping any of these people from coming to their own interpretations regarding how they would like to use bitcoin and whether Satoshi approved or not. 

Satoshi is no longer here.. (at least in terms of a live interacting being) since 2010, if you had not noticed.  The rules are the rules and people can interpret them how they like or try to break bitcoin if they like, and we will see if incentives continue to make bitcoin stronger and more resilient or if there might be ways that bitcoin changes or becomes weaker... I don't see any reason to bet on it's becoming weaker, even if some people might be using bitcoin in ways that don't seem to be within original intentions of Satoshi or anyone else, to the extent that part even matters.