I think he's talking about SRC-20. Check this technical documentation, https://github.com/stampchain-io/stamps_sdk/blob/main/docs/src20specs.md.


If Ordinals is banned, those people would use Rune first rather than resorting to UTXO/fake address.

Everyone is still debating whether it should or shouldn't be "banned"? It's too late in my opinion.

Personally, and as everyone has already noticed from my posting history about Ordinals, BRC-20, and Runes, I am agnostic about them and/or what's being built with them. But for those Bitcoiners who continue talking about it because they hate it, I believe they should study the Streisand Effect. Those people actually did all the "marketing" that Ordinals needed to bootstrap the project. If they ignored it, then everyone would have ignored it/it wouldn't have a lot of attention.

but clearly you believe that banning ordinals would result in a mad rush on using something like bitcoin stamps that's very clear from how you've been talking here.  

as long as they are not allowed to store data without limit and hog up the entire block AND get a 75% discount on the size of their data, they can do whatever they want to. but incentivizing people to store large amounts of data that way is just not ideal.



OP_CHECKMULTISIG was explicitly designed to allow people to do multisig transactions. where is the opcode and bip for ordinals? that's right. there is none. big difference.

clearly the developers were asleep at the wheel and didn't realize that someone would be able to hog up all the space in an entire block using a single transaction. they just didn't realize that could happen. now they don't know what to do so they're not doing anything. but bitcoin is a mess because of it, kind of. and no one wants to admit anything.

you do realize that these people storing data using ordinals are getting a 75% discount on their fees. i disagree with that. if they were paying the full fee that might be different. but even then, obviously it is nice if you limit how much data can be stored per transaction. there's a precedent for doing that you know...

As Warren Buffet said: "Don't invest in something you don't understand". That doesn't really work for the FOMO-people.

take a look: https://stampchain.io

it looks like we have about half a million bitcoin stamps so far. have they impacted the bitcoin network at all? is anyone complaining about them?

people that use the blockchain properly are always welcome to do so. and their transactions will not be pruned out of peoples' nodes like a piece of garbage needing to be discarded into the nearest trash can. you really do get what you pay for.  

pay a little extra and do it the right way. of course, that's easier said than done for the cheapos. who are worried about how much it is going to cost...

oh thats right, that's why they use segwit so they can store a large amount of data for less. as though that makes any sense that people would want them doing that. just saying.

It's not really debatable. If we read the Bitcoin whitepaper and respect it, then we can say that Bitcoin purely p2p version of electronic cash that allows us to send money from one party to another. Ordinals simply is the opposite of Bitcoin. Ordinals simply are data attached to an individual satoshi, this is clearly not an electronic version of cash and this is clearly not used for p2p money transfer. So, fundamentally and from every aspect, ordinals ruin the functionality of Bitcoin as an electronic version of cash and as a p2p payment method.

That's debatable but for the majority of people, it's a good advice.