Ordinals Founder: Why Criticizing Inscriptions Only Undermines Your Value and Bitcoin's Value?

Original Title: “Inscriptions: A Guide for the Ideological Maxi”

Original Author: Casey Rodarmor

Original Compiler: Deep Tide TechFlow

Editor's Note:

Casey Rodarmor, the founder of the Bitcoin protocol Ordinals, states that the current critical paradigm regarding inscriptions is not wise. He hopes Bitcoin extremists will let go of their complaints about inscriptions and suggests they ignore them, as more valuable use cases in the future will render most inscriptions obsolete. Below is the full translation.

If you ask me about my attitude, my views are almost indistinguishable from those of Bitcoin ideological extremists. I despise the state, do not respect authority, and believe that Bitcoin is the path to escape the degradation that fiat currency has inflicted on our lives and civilization.

However, I do not consider myself an ideological Bitcoin extremist, primarily because ideologies often fail to survive contact with reality.

Ideological Bitcoin extremism and its accompanying shallow culture are currently in an unpleasant position: confronted with a reality that does not align with them.

This article contains suggestions for ideological Bitcoin extremists, hoping these suggestions can help them stop self-inflicting and making non-coerced mistakes. In other words, it’s about how to prevent them from becoming losers.

First, I want to say that this article is not written to defend Ordinals and inscriptions. They do not need a defense. The situation has occurred, inscriptions exist, and no one can make them disappear.

Now, let’s look at the suggestions.

My first suggestion is that complaining about inscriptions makes you and Bitcoin look weak. It is contradictory to believe that Bitcoin is an unstoppable internet currency while thinking that posting small images on-chain is foolish. We all know the fact that, in a pinch, the former is correct, and the latter is wrong. Bitcoin is an unstoppable internet currency, while small images on-chain are a trivial issue. However, if you support both views simultaneously, you weaken any argument you believe Bitcoin can resist the state.

Despite many complaints on Twitter, no one can inflict even a little damage on Ordinals and inscriptions. Therefore, given that we still have significant work to do in destroying fiat currency, perhaps you should stop complaining about things you cannot change and adapt to the reality that small images on-chain have come to Bitcoin. There is no doubt that inscriptions will not be the last time people start doing unpleasant things on Bitcoin, so starting to accept Bitcoin now would be a good exercise. Then, you can refocus your energy on more important matters, such as spreading Satoshi's message and helping as many people as possible learn how to use Bitcoin.

Complaining about inscriptions will only make more people aware of them and encourage inscription developers to be more enthusiastic about developing inscriptions, which only makes you look foolish. If ordinary people enjoy doing something, you won’t make any friends or make progress by scolding them for doing it.

If you still insist on complaining about inscriptions, at least take some time to understand them so you can abandon your poor arguments. This includes:

Anyone can right-click save NFTs in JPEG form. Everyone who purchases an inscription knows this. Accepting this and updating your worldview will bring it closer to reality.

Inscriptions are not real; they are merely a collective illusion. I have basically been saying this since day one, that Ordinals and inscriptions are a selective perspective on Bitcoin. If you think inscriptions are some kind of devastating revelation about Bitcoin, it makes you look like an idiot. Moreover, it indicates that you misunderstand one of the most fundamental aspects of humanity, civilization, and culture: everything important is merely a social convention. In fact, Bitcoin is just a social convention. Or to put it another way, what matters is not the software or data, but the social conventions surrounding it. Inscriptions are no exception.

You can store data off-chain. People value on-chain data, which makes inscriptions scarce and greatly enhances reliability and user security. All other NFT ecosystems use off-chain data, and uninformed users will delegate trust to file hosts on IPFS, which can stop hosting at any time. On-chain data greatly enhances credibility, which, as far as I know, is also highly valued by Bitcoin extremists.

Inscriptions are illegal. There is a clear distinction between illegal things like state violence and things you think are foolish. To deem something illegal simply because you dislike or misunderstand its purpose makes you look foolish.

Inscriptions are an attack on Bitcoin. Somehow, you see NFTs and shitcoins on other chains, understand that they exist due to enthusiasm, demand, fraud, and degradation, and do not consider these things a state attack on Ethereum, yet turn around and think they are a state attack on Bitcoin?

Trying to censor inscriptions is exactly the same as trying to censor other types of transactions. Any mechanism you establish or public support you gain will immediately support the censorship of Bitcoin. Fortunately, dealing with transactions deemed illegal is precisely what Bitcoin was intended for, so you will ultimately fail. However, if you do not try to persuade people that censoring Bitcoin transactions is something they should attempt, we will all be better off.

So, how should you treat inscriptions?

Ignore them. More valuable use cases will render most inscriptions price-ineffective. There will always be some high-value inscriptions, but they cannot compete with hard currency and unverifiable transactions. The fate of Bitcoin is high fees; embrace it.