NFTs in the Bitcoin blockchain - Ordinal Theory

[nutildah]

But they should to educate the newbies and make them think hard before spending their precious Bitcoins. A Bitcoin now is better HODLed than spent.

While I'm not exactly sure when you think its good to spend bitcoin, I disagree with this. Bitcoins were made to be spent, not held. The ability to spend them is what gives them their value. When you spend your bitcoin, you are fulfilling its purpose, its destiny. If everybody held their BTC, well first of all there'd be no market, and second of all it would be no different than a Ponzi scheme centered around an illiquid asset.

The tough thing about using bitcoin as a currency is when you buy it at a higher price and then it goes down significantly... This has always been a risk, however. Thankfully BTC has spent more of its life going up than down.

[1714322935]

1714322935

[1714322935]

1714322935

[1714322935]

1714322935

[1714322935]

1714322935

[1714322935]

1714322935

[BlackHatCoiner]

Aren't Phoenix, Breez and Blixt trying to accomplish some kind of a semblance of self-custody?

No mobile app with lightning functionality does that, unless you're running node / hub from home.

Bitcoins were made to be spent, not held. The ability to spend them is what gives them their value. When you spend your bitcoin, you are fulfilling its purpose, its destiny.

Money, in general, is made to be spent. Spending your savings fulfills their purpose, but you should obviously be cautious on when and where to spend them. Same as with bitcoin.

If everybody held their BTC

Everybody don't hold bitcoin. That's what matters. What would happen if everyone did, is another story. The fact is, if you're living off the basic income, need cash and you're out of liquidity, you're going to sell your bitcoin. People who don't run out of liquidity (i.e., rich), with the same mindset and reasoning, will probably hold it for longer.

[nutildah]

If everybody held their BTC

Everybody don't hold bitcoin. That's what matters. What would happen if everyone did, is another story.

I realize that. What I was trying to get across was the "another story" aspect, which is the logical result of everybody holding their bitcoin, which is the mentality that some bitcoiners like to insist upon... that it should just be held indefinitely.

The fact is, if you're living off the basic income, need cash and you're out of liquidity, you're going to sell your bitcoin. People who don't run out of liquidity (i.e., rich), with the same mindset and reasoning, will probably hold it for longer.

This is if you treat it purely as an investment, which its not. It was meant to be a digital currency or "electronic cash" first and foremost.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I realize that. What I was trying to get across was the "another story" aspect, which is the logical result of everybody holding their bitcoin, which is the mentality that some bitcoiners like to insist upon... that it should just be held indefinitely.

If you don't have liquidity problems, then holding it indefinitely is proved to be a good financial decision until now.

This is if you treat it purely as an investment, which its not.

For you. For someone who doesn't care about electronic cash, but only for the potential capital gains, it's purely an investment.

It was meant to be a digital currency or "electronic cash" first and foremost.

But, in practice, you're not encouraged to do that, unless you need to use cash via the Internet. The reason is pretty simple: bad money, fiat, drives out bitcoin. Fiat is better for consumption purposes, as it's getting less valuable comparably to bitcoin overtime.

[Wind_FURY]

But they should to educate the newbies and make them think hard before spending their precious Bitcoins. A Bitcoin now is better HODLed than spent.

While I'm not exactly sure when you think its good to spend bitcoin, I disagree with this. Bitcoins were made to be spent, not held.

Sorry, the point I was making was made through an incomplete post. I was talking more about from an investment perspective and how Bitcoin isn't designed to use for mere "coffee transactions".

Bitcoin's purchasing power grows after the end of a 4-year cycle, so unless you have no choice and truly need to spend your Bitcoin, it's better to use fiat to purchase your personal needs.

Plus "money", could be spent AND held.

The ability to spend them is what gives them their value. When you spend your bitcoin, you are fulfilling its purpose, its destiny. If everybody held their BTC, well first of all there'd be no market, and second of all it would be no different than a Ponzi scheme centered around an illiquid asset.

That's partly true. In my opinion, Bitcoin's main value proposition derives from the fact that it's censorship-resistant. The way it's spent and the way the network is utilized also matters. If people truly believe that Bitcoin was built to be a network for personal/consumer finance, then they're only scratching the surface.

Ordinals is a good example. I may not like dick pics and fart sounds in the blockchain, but it's impressive, for Bitcoin as a protocol, that Casey Rodarmor built his project on top of the network without asking permission. This is the ethos Bitcoin lives by, and saying that it's merely for "spending" cheapens the protocol.

[nutildah]

I don't "sell" bitcoin, I (primarily) use it for what it was originally meant to do, which is act as electronic cash. For someone who is purely using it for speculative reasons, that's fine, nobody said you can't do that. Indeed most people are only interested in the speculative gains aspect. However, if people weren't out there using it for real-world transactions then it would have no value at all.

History won't remember long-term bitcoin holders. It will remember Laszlo Hanyecz, Silk Road & others who established its first use cases.

Ordinals is a good example. I may not like dick pics and fart sounds in the blockchain, but it's impressive, for Bitcoin as a protocol, that Casey Rodarmor built his project on top of the network without asking permission. This is the ethos Bitcoin lives by, and saying that it's merely for "spending" cheapens the protocol.

I'm just referencing Satoshi's original intentions. He didn't create bitcoin to be an investment, even though somewhat ironically that's possibly one of the reasons why its had such success as one. Ordinals is indeed a novel use case that doesn't have to do with spending, so is the stuff I've been doing on Counterparty since 2014. I think what "cheapens the protocol" to a larger degree is insisting bitcoin shouldn't be spent.

[JayJuanGee]

I don't "sell" bitcoin, I (primarily) use it for what it was originally meant to do, which is act as electronic cash. For someone who is purely using it for speculative reasons, that's fine, nobody said you can't do that. Indeed most people are only interested in the speculative gains aspect. However, if people weren't out there using it for real-world transactions then it would have no value at all.

History won't remember long-term bitcoin holders. It will remember Laszlo Hanyecz, Silk Road & others who established its first use cases.

Ordinals is a good example. I may not like dick pics and fart sounds in the blockchain, but it's impressive, for Bitcoin as a protocol, that Casey Rodarmor built his project on top of the network without asking permission. This is the ethos Bitcoin lives by, and saying that it's merely for "spending" cheapens the protocol.

I'm just referencing Satoshi's original intentions. He didn't create bitcoin to be an investment, even though somewhat ironically that's possibly one of the reasons why its had such success as one. Ordinals is indeed a novel use case that doesn't have to do with spending, so is the stuff I've been doing on Counterparty since 2014. I think what "cheapens the protocol" to a larger degree is insisting bitcoin shouldn't be spent.

Part of the "freedom," power and greatness of bitcoin is that you can do whatever the fuck you want with it, including but not limited to HODLing it...

and by the way, appealing to authority seems pretty lame here.. in regards to what supposedly were "satoshi's intentions" in regards to the various ways that bitcoin could be "used" (including whether HODLing fits into the category of uses contemplated by satoshi).  

Another use case, recently discussed as plausible/feasible/reasonable, is the use case of going to your grave with your satoshis... which (if you want to talk about satoshi) seems to be what satoshi did.

[BlackHatCoiner]

However, if people weren't out there using it for real-world transactions then it would have no value at all.

And there will always be, because electronic cash has a tangible value on its own. But not for all people, again. Some people don't care about that, and are quite fine with electronic fiat, alone. For them, electronic cash represents nothing more than an investment – an asset appreciated in practice solely by the faction that truly esteems the concept of electronic cash.

I'm just referencing Satoshi's original intentions.

Even though I don't care much about Satoshi's intentions, I'm just going to quote two parts where he's pretty much arguing it's more than currency;

As a thought experiment, imagine there was a base metal as scarce as gold but with the following properties:
- boring grey in colour
- not a good conductor of electricity
- not particularly strong, but not ductile or easily malleable either
- not useful for any practical or ornamental purpose

and one special, magical property:
- can be transported over a communications channel

If it somehow acquired any value at all for whatever reason, then anyone wanting to transfer wealth over a long distance could buy some, transmit it, and have the recipient sell it.

Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you've suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange.  (I would definitely want some)  Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it.

I think the traditional qualifications for money were written with the assumption that there are so many competing objects in the world that are scarce, an object with the automatic bootstrap of intrinsic value will surely win out over those without intrinsic value.  But if there were nothing in the world with intrinsic value that could be used as money, only scarce but no intrinsic value, I think people would still take up something.

(I'm using the word scarce here to only mean limited potential supply)

What the OP described is called "cornering the market".  When someone tries to buy all the world's supply of a scarce asset, the more they buy the higher the price goes.  At some point, it gets too expensive for them to buy any more.  It's great for the people who owned it beforehand because they get to sell it to the corner at crazy high prices.  As the price keeps going up and up, some people keep holding out for yet higher prices and refuse to sell.

It will remember Laszlo Hanyecz, Silk Road & others who established its first use cases.

Honestly, I don't give a damn about being in history. I wouldn't want to be the known one who traded 10,000 BTC for two pizzas.

[nutildah]

However, if people weren't out there using it for real-world transactions then it would have no value at all.

And there will always be, because electronic cash has a tangible value on its own. But not for all people, again. Some people don't care about that, and are quite fine with electronic fiat, alone. For them, electronic cash represents nothing more than an investment – an asset appreciated in practice solely by the faction that truly esteems the concept of electronic cash.

OK, so we're in agreement... I don't understand why you bothered replying to me in the first place.

Even though I don't care much about Satoshi's intentions, I'm just going to quote two parts where he's pretty much arguing it's more than currency;

As a thought experiment, imagine there was a base metal as scarce as gold but with the following properties:
- boring grey in colour
- not a good conductor of electricity
- not particularly strong, but not ductile or easily malleable either
- not useful for any practical or ornamental purpose

and one special, magical property:
- can be transported over a communications channel

If it somehow acquired any value at all for whatever reason, then anyone wanting to transfer wealth over a long distance could buy some, transmit it, and have the recipient sell it.

This further hammers home the point that I was trying to make. He also referenced bitcoin as being a commodity, but commodities only have value because they are useful in some way or another. They don't have value simply because people expect the price to keep going up.

Honestly, I don't give a damn about being in history. I wouldn't want to be the known one who traded 10,000 BTC for two pizzas.

[Wind_FURY]

Ordinals is a good example. I may not like dick pics and fart sounds in the blockchain, but it's impressive, for Bitcoin as a protocol, that Casey Rodarmor built his project on top of the network without asking permission. This is the ethos Bitcoin lives by, and saying that it's merely for "spending" cheapens the protocol.

I'm just referencing Satoshi's original intentions. He didn't create bitcoin to be an investment, even though somewhat ironically that's possibly one of the reasons why its had such success as one.

But we're here in the current situation.

The easy way out of the debate is "because Satoshi", or "because the white paper".

Ordinals is indeed a novel use case that doesn't have to do with spending, so is the stuff I've been doing on Counterparty since 2014. I think what "cheapens the protocol" to a larger degree is insisting bitcoin shouldn't be spent.

I truly respect your opinion, but not finding out the actual reason why saving Bitcoin makes more sense than spending it like it was a network merely for coffee transactions, makes me believe that we might have only started to scratch the surface.

I'm also still in my Bitcoin journey, and I'm not saying that I'm 100% on the right path. Perhaps I will get a new understanding and agree with you one day.

[Ojima-ojo]

Part of the "freedom," power and greatness of bitcoin is that you can do whatever the fuck you want with it, including but not limited to HODLing it...

).  

Another use case, recently discussed as plausible/feasible/reasonable, is the use case of going to your grave with your satoshis... which (if you want to talk about satoshi) seems to be what satoshi did.

I agree with that,  Satashi actually buried those coins my curiosity leads me to ask,  what then happens to those tins of Bitcoins in Satoshi possession and who gonna spend it I wish Bitcoin is already adopted in the other side of life,  if so then Satoshi would be among the richest dude I that hood.

And we still small bitcoin lords here in the world,  since Bitcoin give us the free,  to own and use bitcoin for whatever best suit our need per time,  it may be right for some to say that Bitcoin holdlers does not make history since their activities may not contribute to the network directly,  but still Bitcoin holder most especially long term Bitcoin holders also contribute to the scarcity of Bitcoin in the market that also help increase the value and price of bitcoin at that point.

and by the way, appealing to authority seems pretty lame here.. in regards to what supposedly were "satoshi's intentions" in regards to the various ways that bitcoin could be "used" (including whether HODLing fits into the category of uses contemplated by satoshi

Satoshi himself is the greatest Bitcoin hodler because he exited that characteristic of long term view when he lock the about 1 million bitcoin from the world and no a bit have been moved from that wallet yet even with all the price ATH that have forced many dominant wallets to make transactions and carrying out coin moving after a long period.


But nothing like that have been noticed with Satoshi wallet it has remain inactive,  to an ordinary jack,  this is a steel hand hodler,  because not many can do what Satoshi have done in the space of Bitcoin development and existence.

[JayJuanGee]

Part of the "freedom," power and greatness of bitcoin is that you can do whatever the fuck you want with it, including but not limited to HODLing it...
).  
Another use case, recently discussed as plausible/feasible/reasonable, is the use case of going to your grave with your satoshis... which (if you want to talk about satoshi) seems to be what satoshi did.

I agree with that,  Satashi actually buried those coins my curiosity leads me to ask,  what then happens to those tins of Bitcoins in Satoshi possession and who gonna spend it I wish Bitcoin is already adopted in the other side of life,  if so then Satoshi would be among the richest dude I that hood.

And we still small bitcoin lords here in the world,  since Bitcoin give us the free,  to own and use bitcoin for whatever best suit our need per time,  it may be right for some to say that Bitcoin holdlers does not make history since their activities may not contribute to the network directly,  but still Bitcoin holder most especially long term Bitcoin holders also contribute to the scarcity of Bitcoin in the market that also help increase the value and price of bitcoin at that point.

and by the way, appealing to authority seems pretty lame here.. in regards to what supposedly were "satoshi's intentions" in regards to the various ways that bitcoin could be "used" (including whether HODLing fits into the category of uses contemplated by satoshi

Satoshi himself is the greatest Bitcoin hodler because he exited that characteristic of long term view when he lock the about 15 million bitcoin from the world and no a bit have been moved from that wallet yet even with all the price ATH that have forced many dominant wallets to make transactions and carrying out coin moving after a long period.

But nothing like that have been noticed with Satoshi wallet it has remain inactive,  to an ordinary jack,  this is a steel hand hodler,  because not many can do what Satoshi have done in the space of Bitcoin development and existence.

I don't know exactly what happens, but it seems pretty likely that there could be close to 1 million bitcoins that were associated with Satoshi.. but it is not 100% clear if they were all associated with Satoshi, but it does seems that anyone who either purposefully or accidentally loses access to their private keys, then those coins are pretty unlikely to ever get spent, unless they are able to be hacked based on poorer storage methods, as compared to what is learning along the way and perhaps any protocol changes that might help for newer wallets to have more security attributes..

[adultcrypto]

Satoshi himself is the greatest Bitcoin hodler because he exited that characteristic of long term view when he lock the about 15 million bitcoin from the world and no a bit have been moved from that wallet yet even with all the price ATH that have forced many dominant wallets to make transactions and carrying out coin moving after a long period.


But nothing like that have been noticed with Satoshi wallet it has remain inactive,  to an ordinary jack,  this is a steel hand hodler,  because not many can do what Satoshi have done in the space of Bitcoin development and existence.

This number seems so strange and unbelievable. You know of any single Bitcoin wallet holding as much as this quantity of Bitcoin? Can you point me to any material or website link where I can read about this? I will want to know how you got this information.

I don't know exactly what happens, but it seems pretty likely that there could be close to 1 million bitcoins that were associated with Satoshi.. but it is not 100% clear if they were all associated with Satoshi, but it does seems that anyone who either purposefully or accidentally loses access to their private keys, then those coins are pretty unlikely to ever get spent, unless they are able to be hacked based on poorer storage methods, as compared to what is learning along the way and perhaps any protocol changes that might help for newer wallets to have more security attributes..

That means @Ojima-ojo statement of 15 million Bitcoin associated to Satoshi may not be entirely correct. I hope to get the clarification because if the statement is right, it means the entire world will be left to trade only 6 million out of the 21 million Bitcoin that was created... this will change my expectations on the price of Bitcoin going forward.

[JayJuanGee]

Satoshi himself is the greatest Bitcoin hodler because he exited that characteristic of long term view when he lock the about 15 million bitcoin from the world and no a bit have been moved from that wallet yet even with all the price ATH that have forced many dominant wallets to make transactions and carrying out coin moving after a long period.

But nothing like that have been noticed with Satoshi wallet it has remain inactive,  to an ordinary jack,  this is a steel hand hodler,  because not many can do what Satoshi have done in the space of Bitcoin development and existence.

This number seems so strange and unbelievable. You know of any single Bitcoin wallet holding as much as this quantity of Bitcoin? Can you point me to any material or website link where I can read about this? I will want to know how you got this information.

I don't know exactly what happens, but it seems pretty likely that there could be close to 1 million bitcoins that were associated with Satoshi.. but it is not 100% clear if they were all associated with Satoshi, but it does seems that anyone who either purposefully or accidentally loses access to their private keys, then those coins are pretty unlikely to ever get spent, unless they are able to be hacked based on poorer storage methods, as compared to what is learning along the way and perhaps any protocol changes that might help for newer wallets to have more security attributes..

That means @Ojima-ojo statement of 15 million Bitcoin associated to Satoshi may not be entirely correct. I hope to get the clarification because if the statement is right, it means the entire world will be left to trade only 6 million out of the 21 million Bitcoin that was created... this will change my expectations on the price of Bitcoin going forward.

Oh gawd..  

Which one is worse?  Ojima-ojo stating that satoshi lost 15 million bitcoins or your (adultcrypto) repeating such nonsense as if there were some kind of a possible basis in such nonsense, when I already stated that the number of BTC that satoshi had was/is somewhere in the 1 million BTC or less territory.  

It is pretty easy to verify several of these kinds of basic facts rather than getting all dramatic about non facts and then repeating and posting about non-facts as if there were some actual basis for such.

[Ojima-ojo]

Oh gawd..  

Which one is worse?  Ojima-ojo stating that satoshi lost 15 million bitcoins or your (adultcrypto) repeating such nonsense as if there were some kind of a possible basis in such nonsense when I already stated that the number of BTC that satoshi had was/is somewhere in the 1 million BTC or less territory.  

The bad @JayJuanGee I should get my memory checked or maybe my brain is thinking one thing and my keyboard typing another thing but in all, I accept the mistake of allocating the wrong figure to satoshi Bitcoin starch, between I believe that in the end, you were able to get the point I was trying to make on unspendable Bitcoins which are locked in either satoshi wallet or other wallets that owners may have lost access to either by way of losing the wallet private keys.


First, we must intentionally continue to work on improving our securities and preventing loss of access to our Bitcoin assets either by way of losing the wallet private keys or losing the wallet to hackers, and also we expect that shortly, we could see new wallet development that can give it users the ability to use other features to trace, track and control the access to their wallet even if there have no access to the wallet keys.


If such development exists, there will be lesser loss of wallet and minimal unspendable Bitcoin in dead wallets, because losing those Bitcoin forever may breed a high scarcity of Bitcoin in the future and the inability of newer members to be able to accumulate Bitcoin all the way up just like we are doing right now.

[JayJuanGee]

Oh gawd..  

Which one is worse?  Ojima-ojo stating that satoshi lost 15 million bitcoins or your (adultcrypto) repeating such nonsense as if there were some kind of a possible basis in such nonsense when I already stated that the number of BTC that satoshi had was/is somewhere in the 1 million BTC or less territory.  

The bad @JayJuanGee I should get my memory checked or maybe my brain is thinking one thing and my keyboard typing another thing but in all, I accept the mistake of allocating the wrong figure to satoshi Bitcoin starch, between I believe that in the end, you were able to get the point I was trying to make on unspendable Bitcoins which are locked in either satoshi wallet or other wallets that owners may have lost access to either by way of losing the wallet private keys.

First, we must intentionally continue to work on improving our securities and preventing loss of access to our Bitcoin assets either by way of losing the wallet private keys or losing the wallet to hackers, and also we expect that shortly, we could see new wallet development that can give it users the ability to use other features to trace, track and control the access to their wallet even if there have no access to the wallet keys.

I agree with you that there are more and more tracking tools that are available (even for people who don't have keys to wallets), and so there could be some usages for tracking when coins move that can help us to determine how scarce the BTC supply might be in terms of when the coins were last moved - however, at the same time, these are still likely probability calculations more than anything, and there could be quite a few kinds of circumstances in which coins do not move, but the key has not been lost and someone actually has the ability to move the coins but has chosen not to.

If such development exists, there will be lesser loss of wallet and minimal unspendable Bitcoin in dead wallets, because losing those Bitcoin forever may breed a high scarcity of Bitcoin in the future and the inability of newer members to be able to accumulate Bitcoin all the way up just like we are doing right now.

This seems like a pretty lame point that you are making because scarcity does not necessarily result in lack of liquidity, especially since we are dealing with a divisible asset, and even though on the blockchain, bitcoin is ONLY dividable down to 8 digits, the lightning network has already allowed for going down to 11 digits, and even on the main blockchain, such softforks to allow such further divisions seems like it would not be difficult to pass.. and I am pretty sure that it could be a softfork, even though I don't claim to have any kind of technical prowess.

Anyhow, I guess my point here is that anyone can get bitcoins, and sure they likely are going to cost more when they are even more scarce than we might have had otherwise thought them to be, and then surely if a million coins all of a sudden move (or unlocked), then the circulating supply of bitcoin becomes less scarce at that point, even if those bitcoin had previously been known but then had been speculated to have been without keys.. and also in that regard, there could be some coins that end up getting their private keys hacked because they are stored in such a way that the keys can be discovered, and surely those kinds of change of ownership may well end up having affects on bitcoin's known circulating supply...

so yeah, even with all of satoshi's coins becoming available (or getting hacked into), whether that is 500k or 1.5million BTC, there would likely be some short term, and perhaps even medium term shocks to the supply and perhaps even perceptions of the vulnerability of the private keys of the supply to get discovered, but at some point, the BTC prices would move back to some kind of an equilibrium.. whether at lower prices than previously or not.  None of that means that people are more or less easily able to get BTC, even if they might have to buy less of an amount, and sure all people (whether poor or not) are likely not going to be able to buy as many BTC in the future as they are able to buy now with the same amount of cash... but what else is new...

Right now, you can buy $1 million worth of bitcoin or you can buy less than 1¢ worth of bitcoin...and even if satoshis go up to costing way more than 1¢ per satoshi, they still can be divided further, and are currently being divided into 1,000ths (on the lightning network), and could be divided further in the event that liquidity becomes a problem... it is the infinitely divisible issue that does not make the units less valuable, but it makes them ongoingly divisible to the extent that such divisibility might be needed in order to address possible liquidity issues.

[adultcrypto]

Oh gawd..  

Which one is worse?  Ojima-ojo stating that satoshi lost 15 million bitcoins or your (adultcrypto) repeating such nonsense as if there were some kind of a possible basis in such nonsense when I already stated that the number of BTC that satoshi had was/is somewhere in the 1 million BTC or less territory.

Seems that didn't go down well with you, kindly pardon me. Curiosity have a way of making one appear awkward sometimes so, I guess that was my case. Maybe my personality trait of not wanting to be left in the dark have turn out to be a major weakness.

Oh gawd..  

Which one is worse?  Ojima-ojo stating that satoshi lost 15 million bitcoins or your (adultcrypto) repeating such nonsense as if there were some kind of a possible basis in such nonsense when I already stated that the number of BTC that satoshi had was/is somewhere in the 1 million BTC or less territory.

The bad @JayJuanGee I should get my memory checked or maybe my brain is thinking one thing and my keyboard typing another thing but in all, I accept the mistake of allocating the wrong figure to satoshi Bitcoin starch, between I believe that in the end, you were able to get the point I was trying to make on unspendable Bitcoins which are locked in either satoshi wallet or other wallets that owners may have lost access to either by way of losing the wallet private keys.

Glad you clarified this....I got @JayJuanGee bored by my asking for clarification as I thought you actually had any source to support what you posted.

[Carlton Banks]

given that the information about Ordinal tokens/NFTs is available publicly somewhere, do we have a BTC value for how much this has cost?

I say this because it might help to put this all in perspective. If someone out there is losing money to the tune of > 1BTC on this nonsense thus far, I think we can safely say they will not continue to do so for long.

I didn't read the whole thread, do we know some kind of net figure for BRC-20 and it's fellow apparitions?

[nutildah]

I didn't read the whole thread, do we know some kind of net figure for BRC-20 and it's fellow apparitions?

Here's a good resource for keeping tabs on BRC-20 & Ordinals activity:

https://dune.com/jellyz/brc20-track

It has come back a bit recently but I think the worst of it is over. That's the thing about degens: they get bored quickly and move on from one things to the next. After Ordinals/BRC-20, it was Doginals/DRC-20, then Ethscriptions (bring it full circle, writing NFTs in ETH tx data rather than via smart contracts, lol). There's also been similar attempts to do the same for Litecoin, Polygon, Avalanche and even Monero, with the last one being all but wholly rejected by the pre-existing community.

But we're here in the current situation.

The easy way out of the debate is "because Satoshi", or "because the white paper".

...

I truly respect your opinion, but not finding out the actual reason why saving Bitcoin makes more sense than spending it like it was a network merely for coffee transactions, makes me believe that we might have only started to scratch the surface.

I'm also still in my Bitcoin journey, and I'm not saying that I'm 100% on the right path. Perhaps I will get a new understanding and agree with you one day.

Fair enough... kudos to you for keeping an open mind through your journey and I should remind myself to attempt to do the same.

[Carlton Banks]

It has come back a bit recently but I think the worst of it is over. That's the thing about degens: they get bored quickly and move on from one things to the next. After Ordinals/BRC-20, it was Doginals/DRC-20, then Ethscriptions (bring it full circle, writing NFTs in ETH tx data rather than via smart contracts, lol).

my apologies to everyone if I didn't make this point sufficiently clear upthread...


...but I'm gonna make it here again.

this whole phenomenon is based on the NEWNEWNEW scam, most "altcoin" stuff is, and we all know it already. in fact, most people trading newly issued stuff are actually engaging in a scammy blinking contest: probably most players in the market activity know they're playing the "hold my bag" game

and then it all starts again next week with the "new" NEWNEWNEW: same game, "!!new and exciting tech!!" **yawn**


and the major irony for me is the same as it was with most of these Bitcoin protocol/relay policy/ecosystem debates; it's possible to make the whole thing worse than it really is, simply by talking about it more than it deserves