Bitcoin Ordinals Creator Proposes Overhaul of Inscription Numbering

Casey Rodarmor, the chief coder behind the Bitcoin Ordinals protocol, introduced Tuesday that he’s proposing a big change to the software program, one which could possibly be seen with skepticism by its budding consumer base.

Revealed in a submit on X Tuesday, Rodarmor particularly proposed deprioritizing the canonical numbering system that assigns distinctive and coveted numbers to inscriptions created on the Bitcoin community.

For the reason that protocol’s inception, every digital artifact created utilizing Ordinals has been assigned a singular inscription quantity. These numbers, akin to serial numbers, have develop into a vital a part of the digital artwork’s id.

Decrease numbered inscriptions have been traditionally perceived as extra helpful, driving collectors to hunt these coveted positions inside the numbering hierarchy. As an illustration, Casey Rodarmor himself owns the extremely sought-after “Inscription 0.”

Notably, the change doesn’t influence the numbering system the protocol assigns to particular person satoshis on the Bitcoin blockchain, which might nonetheless be awarded a definite numerical rating based mostly on their ordering in Bitcoin blocks.

Nonetheless, Rodarmor sought to assuage the market in his feedback discussing the change, expressing concern that the trouble to keep up steady inscription numbers “has resulted in sophisticated code and hindered the protocol’s growth.”

He continued: “The necessity to guarantee new adjustments don’t alter the numbers of present inscriptions has made the event course of cumbersome and difficult.”

Rodarmor’s proposal might spark a vigorous debate inside the Ordinals neighborhood, in addition to amongst NFT collectors and crypto fanatics. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that Rodarmor himself believes this method is already unstable.

Discussing previous makes an attempt to rectify the problems, like including unfavourable numbered “cursed inscriptions” to the protocol, he wrote:

Cursed inscriptions and unfavourable inscriptions numbers have quite a lot of downsides:

• An inscription quantity now doesn’t inform you something concerning the order wherein the inscription was made.
• The logic required to maintain observe of which inscriptions are cursed is a supply of bugs and complexity.
• “Blessing” cursed inscription varieties, i.e., collectively deciding that after a sure block peak, sure cursed inscription varieties will now not be assigned unfavourable numbers, and be assigned constructive numbers as an alternative, requires coordination.
• Cursed inscription numbers are completely unstable, so a considerable variety of inscription numbers are already unstable, even below the established order.

Rodarmor’s answer, in his personal phrases, would make the prevailing inscription numbers “completely unstable,” altering how indexers would deal with this data versus eliminating them solely.

Some market observers like Luxor’s Charlie Spears backed the transfer, stating: “Inscription numbers are a shitcoin, and overemphasis on the quantity has led to ill-conceived protocol choices and peculiar market dynamics.”

Time will inform if the market agrees.

Notably, the proposal comes on the heels of a uncommon public look by Rodarmor on the latest Ordinals Summit in Singapore, the place he mentioned the protocol’s success and future improvements. As such, the pull request might sign that the developer is about to enter a interval of renewed exercise.