$CAPIX
Fading QuicklySnapshot Window: 2026-07-23 06:20 UTC · ← Back to Crypto Overview
Social Momentum Summary
Total Engagement - Comments: 2, Retweets: 3, Likes: 22, Impressions: 555
Verbatim Community Citations & Social Evidence 1 source posts analyzed
Let's protect Bitcoin. WE are Bitcoin. Inform your friends and family. [Spoken audio]: And so I want to stick with the core developers here because the core developers have been roundly very consistent on this, right? Like there have been many loud kind of users who have demanded that developers make changes. And what we've heard from Peter Todd, Peter Willow, you know, Andrew Polstra saying that, you know, any change against ordinals would not be good for the Bitcoin network, right? Maybe you don't agree with this but maybe it's the best way for us to have it. So their view is essentially, you know, what's happening with ordinals is you're allowing people to bid for block space, right? Brand FTEs, tokens and these other use cases. And so we don't have to believe that these use cases are good or useful in order to believe that they're useful for modeling how Bitcoin will look in the future and useful for providing incentives for us to build the kind of technologies we need to build. So the other two groups essentially have a tacit alignment now. The platform maximalists say fees are up, great. The argument that Silicon Valley's been making that Bitcoin is failing and is not incentive secure is now provably wrong. We win, our argument's correct. The Bitcoin developers are saying, sure, you can think ordinals are junk, you can think tokens are junk, but now we have a robust fee market. We have a significant incentive to build top level infrastructure off of Bitcoin and there's a real reason for us to do that. And that reason should result in a net investment and what we're doing whereas previously that really hasn't happened. We've seen that money in capital accrue elsewhere outside of the ecosystem. And so, to the people who are kind of in this camp of like, because again, monetary maximalism was really the predominant flavor of maximalism for the last few years. So I think a lot of people who onboarded, they're coming in and they were largely sent a message that Bitcoin is different than other cryptocurrencies because we don't have tokens, we don't have NFTs, these things are not Bitcoin. And they're watching Bitcoin migrate into a system that looks like the things that they thought that we opposed. So there's a tremendous cognitive pressure that's going on there. So I think all this is to say that we need to think about why that worldview and that will not win out. So I think we're going to a forward direction where it's very unlikely that there will be any meaningful change to the Bitcoin network to prevent ordinals, I don't even think it would be possible if you could, you'd have to build such a powerful consensus to stop that. And so because of that, and again, I think this was very obvious in the early innings, if you were really paying attention to how ordinals was gonna play out. In a world where you can't stop this activity from happening, where this activity is actually good because it directionally forces you to participate in the kind of behaviors you want, then it is a net positive for Bitcoin. I'll give you another example maybe that answers your question in a different way. In a world where the Bitcoin culture follows the anti-ordinals crowd, right, and we encourage development in that direction, is a world in which we are putting money, time, and energy into technology and tactics that aim to prevent Bitcoin transactions. Like, let's just sit with that for just a second. Like, that means that we're encouraging the Bitcoin developers to put their time, energy, and human invention into tactics and techniques that would actively prevent people who want to send a Bitcoin transaction from doing so. The Ordinals crowd is making the argument that the Bitcoin technical community should be focused elsewhere, that the forward direction of the Bitcoin technical community should be on scaling Bitcoin, creating top level infrastructure on top of Bitcoin such that we can scale to 8 billion people, such that we can have new technologies with different properties, and they're willing to live with the NFTs and the tokens, because the NFTs and tokens give us the incentive to move in that direction, to invest the developer's time and energy in that positive forward direction of building the things they think we will need to build anyway. And so that is just a huge diversity of world views. And I think there's, it's going to be very hard for this, the people who are staunchly opposed to ordinals to make the argument to the rest of the community that that should be the forward direction for Bitcoin. Well, they are already struggling with that. We've seen that. They are, yeah. And it doesn't feel like a civil war, like the block size wars. You have many people who are openly right now advocating for forks. Of course, but I don't see that coming. I don't either. And I think that, again, I've answered that on a technical level, on a cultural level, I think it's very hard to make the mental pivot Bitcoin is free to money. You can do whatever you want to someone figure it out a very clever way. That is not hugely detrimental to the network to incentivize activities that people want to do Concentrally and that don't negatively impact Bitcoin. Therefore, we should stop them. That's going to be a very difficult argument You know, it just negatively impacts some Bitcoiners or some use cases
