I'm still trying to understand, what justification are we using to say someone's arbitrary beliefs are invalid? I think this is similar to saying someone's religion is invalid. Arbitrary overlays on top of bitcoin are not only unstoppable it's completely up to users on how they value this arbitrariness, and right now there's enough people that believe there is indeed a "first sat". I agree it's ridiculous.. it doesn't make it not a thing or indistinguishable given their FIFO method of accounting.
I'm still trying to understand, what justification are we using to say someone's arbitrary beliefs are invalid? I think this is similar to saying someone's religion is invalid. Arbitrary overlays on top of bitcoin are not only unstoppable it's completely up to users on how they value this arbitrariness, and right now there's enough people that believe there is indeed a "first sat". I agree it's ridiculous.. it doesn't make it not a thing or indistinguishable given their FIFO method of accounting.
Michael, I never said I could stop it but what I can do explain to people that it is completely arbitrary, and that many of the principles upon which it is founded are not consistent with the mechanisms of Bitcoin or its terminology. I speak with Bitcoiners all over the world but have found that it is only a tiny, tiny fraction that understand things like how a block is constructed, and they certainly don't understand the completely arbitrary nature of ordinals. Most people put a tremendous amount of faith in a small group of technical folks and assume that if they think it is good or sound then it is okay. Silence is considered acceptance. If someone is fully educated on what they are buying and chose to go forward, I am not trying to stop them. But, at this point, I have found few people that really grasp the concept and the "leap of faith" they are making. So, I am not going to sit back and say nothing because it would immoral for me to not attempt to educate. There are many other reasons that I feel compelled to speak but the main other one is that ordinals isn't just some arbitrary layer on top of Bitcoin, it bastardizes the definition of sat and the twists the general public's perspective of the mechanics of Bitcoin. I am very passionate that precision in language, especially in engineering/technical topics, is critical. Trying to add "ordinal" characteristics to the word satoshi is not reflective of the way Bitcoin works, so yes, I will voice opposition to it. Note that since my main business is mining, it could be argued that I am protesting against that benefits me. But, short term financial gain is not my mission. I'd rather go bankrupt than promote something that I believe does damage to the Bitcoin ecosystem in the long-term. I won't belabor this further - I respect your work and your opinion - even when it might not align with mine.
Agree with Bob wholeheartedly, My personal opinion is that communists and affinity scammers twist words and change the meanings of words. Hayek explains how the definitions of words are intentionally changed or coopted to manipulate people in the Road to Serfdom. Words and definitions matter. Language is manipulated to con people. There’s no rare sat or first sat and nothing about ordinals is “on” bitcoin. Purely arbitrary, by the definition of what that word actually means and there’s no actual connection between ordinals and bitcoin. Because you say there is does not make it so in the context of bitcoin. You can claim blue is orange but it’s not and there are objective realities, not subject to arbitrary debate based on the whims of endless scammers. That is why definitions and language matter. Ordinals is just an affinity scam to con people and get their bitcoin. Personally losing respect for all the apologists or worse the “minters”.
@parkeralewis @boomer_btc @MineOnAtomic there are no apologist, you can't apologize for something that doesn't exist.
@miketwenty1 @parkeralewis @boomer_btc @MineOnAtomic "rare sats" don't exist in bitcoin, but affinity scammers and chain spammers do exist. I'd say the point is that people are marketing these 'ord-view' sats as though they are bitcoin. But reality is: ordinals are not bitcoin. 'ord' is a separate protocol.
@stephanlivera @parkeralewis @boomer_btc @MineOnAtomic it's not up to us to protect the 1 person who decided to buy the 33 btc sat. If someone has that much btc to burn then they can spend it how they like... we aren't protecting anyone by casting shade on a single degen.