8 ms·

I disagree with the following, but my understanding is Bitcoin purists believe that ordinals are moving Bitcoin away from Satoshis’s whitepaper introduction of

I disagree with the following, but my understanding is Bitcoin purists believe that ordinals are moving Bitcoin away from Satoshis’s whitepaper introduction of Bitcoin as peer to peer electronic cash. In this mindset, meme coins and nfts are scams or at best unimportant entertainment commodities rather than a core innovation of blockchains. So the use of the Bitcoin chain’s limited block space to create these ordinals increases fees for peer to peer cash transactions and move Bitcoin away from Satishi’s vision. Probably the reason for leaving the conclusions to the reader is conspiratorial. Since one single wallet is responsible for most ordinals, some people might believe it is a government actor trying to stop Bitcoin from becoming useful as peer to peer cash. Of course this is ridiculous as in fact the original premise is wrong as memecoin and nft entertainment products represent a greater threat to state power than peer to peer cash - as they represent popular sovereign property that a lot of people want.

agentgumshoe 3y ago
I think your last statement is completely wrong. NFT's and memecoins are a grift by scammers, no more. People being duped is certainly no evidence of any actual threat to state powers. Most of the memecoins seem to just be money raising vehicles to bolster exchange profits
- xk_id 3y ago
  Actually, you’re the one who got duped, if you genuinely believe that every single NFT is a scam and that you understand them better than every single NFT owner.
  - jboy55 3y ago
    If I believe 99% of all NFTs sold were get-rich-quick scams, and because of that I've never have bought an NFT, how am I being duped? What am I missing by not being involved in it? Or more accurately, what did I miss out on? Seems like I missed out as much as I missed out not getting any Beanie Babies.
    - nhinck2 3y ago
      You missed the dopamine rush of being part of a zeitgeist!
    - xk_id 3y ago
      It’s not up to me to know what you should spend your money on. However, your statistic makes no sense. Objectively speaking, many NFTs being minted are technical in nature, such as concentrated liquidity on AMMs; it’s nonsensical to compare this use case to beanie babies. That’s just one example. There are also private communities on social media which are gated and can only be accessed by verifying NFT ownership. Not saying you should care, but there is organic demand for access to those communities and you’re deluding yourself if you think their members are all imbeciles who believed that JPGs were actually being stored on the blockchain, or whatever. There are also examples of video games which use NFTs as interoperable assets. You probably have a very specific image of NFTs that was fed to you by crypto opponents and which is incomplete and naive. That doesn’t mean that I think you missed out on anything. That’s subjective
      - dakom 3y ago
        NFTs are essentially bearer tokens, very much like literal Bearer tokens in HTTP. To take one of your examples- gating auth to a community.. the community is usually an off-chain centralized thing like Discord. Due to that, the auth logic sits behind closed doors. Verifying an NFT has no advantages over verifying a random string that only the intended user has. i.e. traditional bearer tokens of some sort. The only advantage of NFTs is in systems that are completely decentralized or in systems that care about verifying a wallet for some reason (_not_ the same thing as verifying a user who goes through the centralized auth of discord or xbox) So, for example, if the community itself were completely 100% on-chain. This doesn't exist because chains cannot scale the way simple socket servers do. There may be some chats or games that operate on-chain, but they are slow and feel like 30 year old tech. Afaik the most popular use case for chains is trading crypto assets. Here, NFTs can be useful for establishing auth (or other on chain utilities like the concentrated liquidity you mentioned), but then it gets to the parent's point - for someone who doesn't care about trading crypto, there isn't a compelling use case, since it all boils down to "beanie babies" - the difference is that it's not the nfts that are the beanie babies, it's the crypto ecosystem driven by circular supply/demand.
zmgsabst 3y ago
Those are the same people who stopped BTC from having smart contracts via a full featured VM, moving it away from Satoshi’s vision — right? BTC was supposed to be liquid as a market for compute by posing and solving challenges to give it an intrinsic value — and the people who gimped it for “Digital (Fools) Gold” are now complaining about scammers misusing the technology? Well, at least I get to start my day with a laugh.
- nullc 3y ago
  > Those are the same people who stopped BTC from having smart contracts via a full featured VM The only person who has ever reduced scripts functionality is Satoshi. But the conartist pretending to be Satoshi has been paying people to claim otherwise. It's easily falsified. > BTC was supposed to be liquid as a market for compute by posing and solving challenges to give it an intrinsic value Citation needed. That doesn't even make sense: You can't give the Bitcoin currency itself "intrinsic value" just because people use it to buy or sell some kind of good or another.
  - zmgsabst 3y ago
    Sure you can: if the tokens are a medium of requesting compute, they take on a base value because they can be exchanged for that service. BTC was a commodity token for compute. Right now, there’s no native market for BTC to either drive its adoption or create a value even in the presence of inflation. Which is why its “killer app” has remained circumventing financial controls — as that’s the service its network provides. In contrast to ETH.
    - nullc 3y ago
      "The tokens" can't be a medium of requesting compute except in the sense that any money can be used to pay for goods and services. When we talk about something having intrinsic value it doesn't really make sense to argue it on the basis of "you can use it as money to pay people to do stuff", that's an extrinsic value. (It also seems to be a non-sequitur. If you want to pay people to perform computation for you only the most minimal functionality from Bitcoin's script is required to do so in a trustless manner, e.g. https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/02/26/zero-knowledge-contingent-payments-announcement/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/02/26/zero-knowledge-conting... ) You've also appear to have ignored my correction on your "stopped" and "BTC was supposed to" remarks, if you're engaging in this discussion in good faith and were simply mistaken it would be polite to retract your error.

agentgumshoe 3y ago

I think your last statement is completely wrong. NFT's and memecoins are a grift by scammers, no more. People being duped is certainly no evidence of any actual threat to state powers. Most of the memecoins seem to just be money raising vehicles to bolster exchange profits

xk_id 3y ago
Actually, you’re the one who got duped, if you genuinely believe that every single NFT is a scam and that you understand them better than every single NFT owner.
- jboy55 3y ago
  If I believe 99% of all NFTs sold were get-rich-quick scams, and because of that I've never have bought an NFT, how am I being duped? What am I missing by not being involved in it? Or more accurately, what did I miss out on? Seems like I missed out as much as I missed out not getting any Beanie Babies.
  - nhinck2 3y ago
    You missed the dopamine rush of being part of a zeitgeist!
  - xk_id 3y ago
    It’s not up to me to know what you should spend your money on. However, your statistic makes no sense. Objectively speaking, many NFTs being minted are technical in nature, such as concentrated liquidity on AMMs; it’s nonsensical to compare this use case to beanie babies. That’s just one example. There are also private communities on social media which are gated and can only be accessed by verifying NFT ownership. Not saying you should care, but there is organic demand for access to those communities and you’re deluding yourself if you think their members are all imbeciles who believed that JPGs were actually being stored on the blockchain, or whatever. There are also examples of video games which use NFTs as interoperable assets. You probably have a very specific image of NFTs that was fed to you by crypto opponents and which is incomplete and naive. That doesn’t mean that I think you missed out on anything. That’s subjective
    - dakom 3y ago
      NFTs are essentially bearer tokens, very much like literal Bearer tokens in HTTP. To take one of your examples- gating auth to a community.. the community is usually an off-chain centralized thing like Discord. Due to that, the auth logic sits behind closed doors. Verifying an NFT has no advantages over verifying a random string that only the intended user has. i.e. traditional bearer tokens of some sort. The only advantage of NFTs is in systems that are completely decentralized or in systems that care about verifying a wallet for some reason (_not_ the same thing as verifying a user who goes through the centralized auth of discord or xbox) So, for example, if the community itself were completely 100% on-chain. This doesn't exist because chains cannot scale the way simple socket servers do. There may be some chats or games that operate on-chain, but they are slow and feel like 30 year old tech. Afaik the most popular use case for chains is trading crypto assets. Here, NFTs can be useful for establishing auth (or other on chain utilities like the concentrated liquidity you mentioned), but then it gets to the parent's point - for someone who doesn't care about trading crypto, there isn't a compelling use case, since it all boils down to "beanie babies" - the difference is that it's not the nfts that are the beanie babies, it's the crypto ecosystem driven by circular supply/demand.

zmgsabst 3y ago

Those are the same people who stopped BTC from having smart contracts via a full featured VM, moving it away from Satoshi’s vision — right? BTC was supposed to be liquid as a market for compute by posing and solving challenges to give it an intrinsic value — and the people who gimped it for “Digital (Fools) Gold” are now complaining about scammers misusing the technology? Well, at least I get to start my day with a laugh.

nullc 3y ago
> Those are the same people who stopped BTC from having smart contracts via a full featured VM The only person who has ever reduced scripts functionality is Satoshi. But the conartist pretending to be Satoshi has been paying people to claim otherwise. It's easily falsified. > BTC was supposed to be liquid as a market for compute by posing and solving challenges to give it an intrinsic value Citation needed. That doesn't even make sense: You can't give the Bitcoin currency itself "intrinsic value" just because people use it to buy or sell some kind of good or another.
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  Sure you can: if the tokens are a medium of requesting compute, they take on a base value because they can be exchanged for that service. BTC was a commodity token for compute. Right now, there’s no native market for BTC to either drive its adoption or create a value even in the presence of inflation. Which is why its “killer app” has remained circumventing financial controls — as that’s the service its network provides. In contrast to ETH.
  - nullc 3y ago
    "The tokens" can't be a medium of requesting compute except in the sense that any money can be used to pay for goods and services. When we talk about something having intrinsic value it doesn't really make sense to argue it on the basis of "you can use it as money to pay people to do stuff", that's an extrinsic value. (It also seems to be a non-sequitur. If you want to pay people to perform computation for you only the most minimal functionality from Bitcoin's script is required to do so in a trustless manner, e.g. https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/02/26/zero-knowledge-contingent-payments-announcement/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/02/26/zero-knowledge-conting... ) You've also appear to have ignored my correction on your "stopped" and "BTC was supposed to" remarks, if you're engaging in this discussion in good faith and were simply mistaken it would be polite to retract your error.