Ordinals founder: Why criticizing inscriptions only weakens you and the value of Bitcoin?
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Ordinals founder: Why criticizing inscriptions only weakens you and the value of Bitcoin?
Complaining about inscriptions makes you and Bitcoin look weak.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: Casey Rodarmor
Translation: TechFlow
Casey Rodarmor, founder of the Bitcoin protocol Ordinals, argues that current critiques of inscriptions are unwise. He urges Bitcoin maximalists to stop complaining about inscriptions and instead suggests ignoring them, as more valuable use cases will eventually render most inscriptions obsolete. Below is the full translated article.
If you ask me about my stance, my views differ little from those of ideological Bitcoin extremists. I despise the state, hold no respect for authority, and believe Bitcoin is the path to escape the corruption that fiat money inflicts on our lives and civilization.
However, I don't consider myself an ideological Bitcoin extremist, primarily because ideologies tend not to survive contact with reality.
Ideological Bitcoin maximalism—and its accompanying shallow culture—is currently in an uncomfortable position: confronted by a reality it refuses to accept.
This article offers advice to ideological Bitcoin extremists, hoping it helps them stop shooting themselves in the foot and making unnecessary mistakes—in other words, how to stop being losers.
First, let me say this article isn’t written to defend Ordinals or inscriptions. They don’t need defending. What’s done is done—inscriptions exist, and no one can make them go away.
Now, here’s the advice.
My first piece of advice: complaining about inscriptions makes you and Bitcoin look weak. It's contradictory to simultaneously claim Bitcoin is unstoppable internet money while calling posting small images on-chain "stupid." We all know one thing is true under duress: Bitcoin *is* unstoppable internet money, and small on-chain images are irrelevant. But if you argue both positions, you undermine your own claims that Bitcoin can resist the state.
Despite all the Twitter outrage, no one has been able to damage Ordinals or inscriptions in any meaningful way. Given that we still have important work to do dismantling fiat, perhaps you should stop complaining about things you cannot change and adapt to the reality that small on-chain images have arrived on Bitcoin. Undoubtedly, inscriptions won’t be the last time people start doing unpleasant things on Bitcoin, so learning to accept Bitcoin now would be excellent practice. Then, you can redirect your energy toward more important matters—spreading Satoshi’s message and helping as many people as possible learn how to use Bitcoin.
Complaining about inscriptions only gives them more attention and motivates inscription developers even further—just to prove you wrong. If ordinary people enjoy doing something, you won’t make friends or progress by scolding them for it.
If you insist on complaining about inscriptions, at least take time to understand them so you can abandon your weak arguments. These include:
-
Anyone can right-click and save an NFT as a JPEG. Every single person who buys an inscription knows this—every one of them. Accepting this and updating your worldview will bring it closer to reality.
-
Inscriptions aren’t “real”—they’re merely a collective illusion. From day one, I’ve essentially said this: Ordinals and inscriptions represent an optional lens through which to view Bitcoin. If you think inscriptions are some catastrophic revelation for Bitcoin, you look like a fool. Moreover, it shows you misunderstand one of the most fundamental aspects of humanity, civilization, and culture: everything important is just social convention. In fact, Bitcoin itself is nothing but social convention. Or put another way: what matters isn’t the software or data, but the social conventions around it. Inscriptions are no exception.
-
You can store data off-chain. People value on-chain data because it makes inscriptions scarce and greatly enhances reliability and user security. All other NFT ecosystems rely on off-chain data, leaving uninformed users trusting file hosts on IPFS—who may stop hosting at any moment. On-chain data dramatically increases trustworthiness, which, as far as I know, is something Bitcoin maximalists claim to value highly.
-
Inscriptions are illegitimate. There’s a clear difference between things that are illegal (like state violence) and things you personally find stupid. Calling something “illegitimate” just because you dislike or fail to understand its purpose makes you look foolish.
-
Inscriptions are an attack on Bitcoin. Somehow, you see NFTs and shitcoins on other chains, recognize they exist due to enthusiasm, demand, fraud, and decay, yet don’t view them as state attacks on Ethereum—then turn around and claim they’re state attacks on Bitcoin?
Trying to censor inscriptions is exactly the same as trying to censor any other type of transaction. Any mechanism you build or public support you gain will immediately enable broader censorship of Bitcoin. Fortunately, handling transactions deemed “illegitimate” is precisely what Bitcoin was designed for, so you’ll ultimately fail—but we’d all be better off if you didn’t try convincing people that censoring Bitcoin transactions is something worth attempting.
So how should you treat inscriptions?
Ignore them. More valuable use cases will make most inscriptions economically irrelevant. There will always be some high-value inscriptions, but they won’t compete with sound money and censorship-resistant transactions. Bitcoin’s destiny is high fees—embrace it.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
@rodarmor
