My opinion differs with respect to Ordinals, Inscriptions and BRC-20:
-
Ordinals project itself ("collecting [rare and strange] satoshis"): It's ok. It's not a major innovation, but could be interesting for some collectionists. Not for me, however (but if I find one of these super-rare things I'll sell it
).
-
Inscriptions: On Bitcoin-style altcoins they can be a cool feature. I support them above all on data-centered chains like NMC or Doge (although currently it seems both don't support Taproot). But Bitcoin isn't a good place for them. Bitcoin's network effect depends on its main token. That doesn't mean BTC has do be used only for regular transactions (financial contracts are also interesting) but it's of no value to store other kind of data there. I'm against all inscriptions larger than ~1-2 kB and thus would support a developer action to make big Taproot transactions non-standard (but
not Ordisrespector and other censorship/"filter" methods).
-
BRC-20: the worst and most anachronistic technology I've ever seen on Bitcoin (JSON to save data on-chain?
Really? Why not use Protobuf or similar much more efficient methods?). It was started as an experiment but people took it seriously, most likely because many don't know that there are already dozens of competing standards since ~2013-14 which are mostly much more efficient with space (EPOBC, Open Assets, Counterparty, Omni, RGB, Taproot Assets [Taro] - even recommended by the BRC-20 creator!). I expect a sudden and cruel death and a >90% loss for everybody who invested in these tokens straight out of the technology stone age.
you do realise that the ordinals v0 (rare sats) are miscounted and dont go to the destinations the ordinals explorer pretends it does
you do realise the inscriptions (memes and json) are also miscounted and are also just appended
after the tx signing process and thus not actually part of the signed tx data.. thus not assigned to any output. thus doesnt actually move/transfer with the transaction.
there are actual mechanisms that could assign hashs of inscriptions to a output. but the ordinals project manager is too dumb to use it. thus the whole ordinals project of all versions has no real transfer protocol or proof of ownership mechanisms, so is broke
he could employ a simple fix, for instance create a multisig of 1-of-2 where by the multisig is a destination owners public key + the hash of inscription.
thus the multisig address the creator uses as destination is the recipients proof of receiving the inscription becasue the creators destination is an address that includes the inscription hash to make the multisig address. thus assigning the inscription to an output/spend
thus when recipient later want to spend it, the recipient of first(now owner) uses his public key (1-of-2) and as part of the redeem script, reveals the multisig address holds the hash of inscription thus show it owned it.
where by when spending it. he would too combine the inscription hash + his buyers public key to make a 1 of 2 multisig for the destination address. so that the buyer can then claim it in the same way
