his Hambloge go S I Yeah. Cool. Cool. All right. We're going to get started. That musical styling was a creative direction by Casey there. Yeah. I mean, today we're going to keep it pretty open and casual. Thanks CB Spears for helping me moderate and co-host today. Basically, my plan is to kind of spend the first maybe 30 minutes just sort of letting Casey talk and going over kind of what's happened so far, how he's thinking about things. And then the speakers that are currently on stage, feel free to chime in whenever you want. I want it to basically just be a well-rounded description of what's happened so far. And then maybe after 30 minutes or so, we can kind of start bringing people up for questions and kind of open it up. So yeah, that's what I'm thinking. I can hand it over to Casey now if you want to take it over. Yo, what's up, everybody? Yeah, I don't know if I can talk for 30 minutes, but I can talk for at least some amount of time. Yeah, so as people probably are aware a while ago, like a week ago, maybe something like that, I published a blog post or this blog post that I published came to light in which I proposed a re-numbering of inscriptions. Inscriptions currently have a number. Each inscription has a number. It is assigned in the order in which the inscriptions are created sort of. The sort of part is because there are a lot of older inscriptions or inscriptions in the sequence that when they were created, the order, the reference implementation of ordinals and inscriptions, did not recognize them, did not see them. Things like being on an input other than the first, things like being a re-inscription, things like being the second or third or fourth inscription in an input, other edge cases in how envelopes are parsed. All of these things meant that the original version of ord did not recognize some weird inscriptions, some inscriptions that are weird and odd, but also some inscriptions that we certainly want to recognize. For example, if you want to do collections, you might want to, or for whatever reason, you might want to mint a whole bunch of inscriptions in a single transaction. And for that, you probably, you want to put multiple, multiple inscription envelopes in a single transaction or have inscriptions on inputs after the first. So we sort of did this thing. We did this like hack, which at this point, I deeply regret, which is that these new inscriptions were assigned negative numbers. So it's not to disrupt the main sequence. So these inscriptions were termed cursed and received negative numbers, negative unstable numbers. So as to avoid renumbering inscriptions. So you see a whole bunch of, so the normal inscriptions, they start from zero. And the cursed and go up, and the cursed inscriptions start from negative one and go down. And I sort of thought, yeah, maybe this is like a tenable situation. But after a lot of experience with the protocol, there are many, many, many edge cases and many, many reasons that you might want to recognize new inscriptions and new places. I sort of feel like there's maybe a long tail of these things. And it means, essentially, more and more kinds of cursed inscriptions. And another issue is that a globally consistent ordering of inscriptions, like a globally consistent inscription numbering, it sort of introduces this coordination into the ordinal's protocol. And the coordination that I'm talking about is the necessity for everybody to sort of agree on this canonical ordering of inscriptions. And if we want to un-bless, or if we want to bless cursed inscriptions in the future so that after some point in the future, they begin getting positive inscription numbers, we would all have to coordinate around that. That sort of coordination is both tricky, sort of hard to manage, and kind of introduces a point of centralization. It's better if protocols don't really have those sort of hard coordination points that everybody has to get behind. So yeah, proposal is to essentially retroactively bless all of these cursed inscriptions and for inscription numbers to be unstable going forward. And I should also mention the other reason that I thought that the other reason is sort of tech debt. As me and Raf and other contributors work on the code, the code to recognize the cursed inscriptions, the different kinds of cursed inscriptions, is pretty heinous, it's pretty disgusting. So it would eliminate some amount of tech debt, and so that would be kind of nice on the developer side. But I guess something that I should say is that I don't know, obviously I have a lot of sway, but I kind of don't see it as my job to really make a decision on this. I can kind of bring proposals forward for the community and explain why I think that they're a good idea or not a good idea. But then after that point, I really have to step back and just kind of listen to what people have to say, just kind of figure out what people think about. The proposal and so like the conversation is still very much open. And I also think that there's a very high bar for making changes like this in terms of how controversial they can be. I don't just think that you can make decisions if like, even if I think something is the right decision, I don't think that I can make the decision if there's a substantial amount of people who really disagree with me and have reasons that they disagree with me. Even if some of those reasons are like not the best, I think that there needs to be a high bar for sort of consensus and also a high bar for contentiousness. I don't think it's a good idea to make contentious changes in the protocol. Sometimes in some contacts, people have heard me say, like, oh, I fucking hate democracy. I think it makes stupid decisions. One of the reasons that I hate democracy and also a lot of forms of sort of formal on-chain governance is I think that they often function as ways of pushing through unpopular decisions or popular decisions at substantial expense of the minority. So I don't think that a 50% threshold is enough. I probably don't even think that a 75% threshold or a 90% threshold is enough. I think that changes like this really have to be done with broad consensus. Even though I kind of think of it, I think that it's a good idea. I have to take off my opinionated developer hat and then just try to listen to what everybody thinks. Let's see. I kind of want to ask, Raf, is there anything that I missed in my sort of description? Raf is, you know, he's the lead maintainer of ordinals. I guess he actually, as the final say, he can merge things or not. But he's another person who has a lot of experience with the code and working with person's descriptions. So I wonder if there's anything that you want to add from the technical side of things? Yeah, I mean, that was a very good, like, very broad kind of summary. Like just how it came about was we were like coding something on the code and then I was kind of complaining about all these person's descriptions and how difficult it is to make changes. And then Casey was just like, oh, let me write a blog post. And I was like, I don't know. Let's not do that. It's too contentious. And then you wrote the blog post and you just put it on your blog and I said, people are going to find you like, I know where he checks my blog. And then yeah, I guess people found out upon it and now we're here. But like, yeah, like, I think from a technical perspective, that's basically all the things. Like, especially kind of this coordination mechanism, like when to make this activation. And not only this is not a one time thing, it's that you will every time kind of there's like this new kind of cursed inscription or new way to put something into the envelope or into a transaction, you would have to coordinate again. So especially that is kind of very, yeah, it's very, it's very unclear how you would coordinate this because there's no way to signal support on chain and like, it's just, yeah, it's very fuzzy and weird. So yeah, I think that I mean, yeah, I don't necessarily have anything more to say. Talking for 30 minutes might be a bit of a stretch. Aaron, is there anything you think that I didn't cover or that I should, you know, explain? No, I think it did a pretty good job. I sort of thought the first 30 minutes would be like just whoever's on the stage. So, you know, Leonidas, Danny, or Nelly, whoever else wants to kind of chime in and contribute, please feel free. Yeah, I just want this to be like a full overview, basically. I mean, and maybe we should also like clarify what the discussion is exactly about because I've seen some confusion. So it's not about like getting rid of inscription numbers per say, it's just kind of allowing them to be potentially unstable. And especially now that we're up at like 30 million, nobody I think really cares about inscription numbers like maybe if you have the 30th million, that's something interesting. But like it's not about like deleting the inscription numbers, it's just kind of streamlined them. And yeah, that would potentially mean that like some inscriptions get like pushed up or pushed down. But yeah, just wanted to kind of clarify that. I'm sure Leonidas. Oh yeah, I want it. I wanted to add one thing, which is that the current state of inscription numbers makes them a little bit odd in that they sort of represent the sequence that inscriptions were made in the chain. But not quite. There are cursed inscriptions that come before like like like inscriptions. There's inscriptions. If you just go by the current inscription number, you're not actually seeing the chronological order of those inscriptions in the chain. So for example, like inscription number, you know, 10,000, it's kind of technically not inscription number 10,000. And it can be sort of like confusing, you know. And then inscription numbers being negative, this is another sort of odd thing. So I just wanted to mention that as another downside of the current inscription numbering system. Yeah, I mean, inscription numbers in and of itself, like we're just like a really like tangential thought when we were creating inscriptions. I remember it was like, hmm, like, should we number inscriptions? And then we were like, oh, this seems like a cool idea. Let's just add it. And I think that was kind of the original sin adding, adding inscription numbers. Because inscription numbers are not inherent to an inscription. What an inscription is, is the, the message, the protocol messages on chain. And the, and the data of the inscription. So inscription numbers are just the thing on top that we were like, oh, this sounds kind of cool. But I mean, now I think, of course, like, inscriptions and art is all about history and stuff. So inscriptions are kind of the numbers are part of the lore of of ordinals. So, and it also like, I think added a lot to the initial hype. People seeing their inscription number and be like, oh, they wanted to be the sub 100s, sub 1k, sub 10k, and so on and so forth. So it did help grow the ecosystem. So I think it's, it shouldn't be like completely disregarded as completely worthless. It is, it is kind of part of the story right now. So that's kind of my, my, my caveat. I'll let Leonidas jump in here. So sure he's got a lot to say. Thanks, Aaron. Yeah, I appreciate y'all having me up here. Like, really appreciate all of y'all hopping on this space and just having the discussion. I think I, in a lot of people value these sort of open discussions like this. I kind of wish, you know, Twitter spaces were around during the box eyes awards or something. Maybe people would have gotten along better. But yeah, so I just wanted to push back a little bit on wraps characterization that a lot of people don't care about inscription numbers now. I think it sort of implies this framing and narrative that, you know, inscription numbers are this kind of number on top of a jpeg that we enjoy to collect. And there's like a group of us that really like that. And like, well, that is one facet of this conversation. I think it's just much bigger than that, right? So I think the idea of the inscription number being predictable is the idea of like, you know, going to anyone in the ordinal's community and asking them, hey, is this a valid inscription? And if I did that two weeks ago, you know, 99.9% of the time, I would get the correct answer, right? If I did that now, I would get like 80% the correct answer, right? So knowing what a valid inscription is, I think it is really important. I think people do care about that a lot. And we've determined what's a valid inscription through the idea of inscription numbers. We have built meta protocols on top of these inscription numbers on the sequence. So I think, you know, it's not the representative of the, you know, 90% of the activity and like two thirds of the financial activity on this protocol to say that people don't care about inscription numbers. I think that's just objectively not the case, you know, BRC20.sats, bitmap, Bitcoin, Punks, Sub-100K, like just lots of smaller meta protocols, all very much care that we have consensus around a sequence and a set of numbers. And then lastly, in a much less important point, I do think inscription numbers are just one of the things that this protocol got right. I think I've heard overwhelmingly that people really enjoy the inscription number aspect of this protocol. And they really like that. It's just an idea that makes sense. Like, I know that like technically you guys don't, like, you guys aren't huge fans of people using the inscription numbers for IDs. But fundamentally, it makes the protocol so much more approachable from maybe a newcomers perspective. And I like use the numbers all day every day. Like I'm constantly copy-facing numbers, you know, typing in numbers. And I know a lot of people share that experience with the protocol. So those are just some things I would push back on where I think it is more than just, you know, Sub-100K, you know, kind of collecting. I think there's a lot of facets to this that I want to make sure, you know, are part of the conversation. Okay, thanks for, yeah, just to say KZR. I was gonna... Yeah, I was gonna probably flow to question. I think that might help probably frame things in, in like, what is mutual interest. And if I would just kind of open up a general question, probably first to KC, but then even the room. I mean, what would make you happy to see... How would you love to see Ordinals look in five years? What would make you really happy to see this... the growth of this protocol? And what would that look like? Oh man, I think the thing that would make me happiest in five years is if it was pretty much done. And it was like solid and had all the features and like wasn't gonna change. I think that that is the most important thing. I think that it's probably really tempting to add a whole bunch of crazy bloat to the protocol. And there are definitely some, like, missing features that I think we definitely should add. Not actually that many. So that would make me happy. And it would also make me happy if there was just very cool art. I think Ordinals right now is in what I would describe as the avant-garde phase. Avant-garde art is often very experimental. A lot of it is like super bad too. Not that everything on... not that every inscription is bad, just that it's a highly, highly experimental phase. So yeah, in five years, I think it would be cool if it was sort of out of the avant-garde phase, if sort of different kind of themes and styles were starting to emerge, and that the protocol was done. And nobody cared what I had to say anymore. That would be awesome. Yeah, I would agree with that, like just having some maturity and seeing cool art. And some cool tools as well, like cool wallets, cool ways to kind of trade these artifacts, kind of in the physical and in the digital kind of digital and a physical way. And yeah, some like seeing inscriptions and Ordinals as a way to publish your art. Like that serious artists are like, oh, I'm making this piece of art. I want it on Bitcoin. I want it to be an inscription. And yeah. So do you guys consider the like DRC-20 users to be people you're building for? Like, you know, I got this question earlier today. It's like, you know, who does the Ordinals core team, you know, serve at the end of the day? Does it serve the initial kind of intentions for the protocol to be a place for artists and collectors to gather and create awesome, you know, the mutable art on Bitcoin? Or do you guys kind of expand, you know, who you're building for to include all the people that, you know, don't don't fit into that initial vision, but still build and use your protocol every day? I think. Yeah, I think that, oh, did somebody else start? No, no, all you all you, it's just show here. You got this. Yeah, no, like, so I think that sort of unfortunately, like, yes, we do have to think about DRC-20 users. I say that, unfortunately, I kind of have, I really have no problem with DRC-20. It kind of makes me annoyed that it, like, shows up on ordinals.com. We still have to filter them because probably nobody really cares about the SAT, mid-messages. And it's just a reality of, it's a reality of being a programmer or a developer that when you make something and you put it out in the world, it gets used by a lot of different people for a lot of different things and also for things that you don't, you don't, like, intend, you know what I mean, that you don't necessarily anticipate or intend. And I think that it's kind of tempting to just write off all of those uses. And I think that, you know, if I had some criticism of DRC-20, it would be that it is very sensitive to this kind of, like, global state, to this global ordering of transactions, which certainly isn't a property of inscriptions, right? Inscriptions aside from inscription numbers are, you know, whether or not an inscription exists and its meaning is very independent of all the other inscriptions that have come before it. And so it's, like, unfortunate that DRC-20 is very, very sensitive to this property of sort of global ordering and global state, aside from inscription numbers and inscriptions, you know, really don't have any sort of global state that everybody needs to agree on. So yeah, I think that aspect of the protocol is unfortunate, but like, ultimately, you know, when you build something and put it out there, you get users and those users don't necessarily look like your, you know, initial, like, intended user base. There's sort of a joke that when you write a program, every aspect of that program's behavior, even though, even those aspects which aren't intentional, will become like a critical feature that users rely on. So yeah, I think that's just the aspect of being a dev. I guess if DRC-20 did something like insanely egregious, just like, beyond dumb, then I would be like, okay, guys, there's no fucking way. But like, you know, relying on the order of transactions is not the, it's not ideal, everything relying on the order of all transactions, it's not ideal, but it's not like, you know, completely like insane, you know? So I think that it's, yeah, it is definitely user-based that has to be considered. Over at Leo. Yeah, so I guess to just try to understand maybe in your head, Casey, like, what do you feel your role here is from a perspective of the founder of a meta protocol, right? So, you know, I think there's a lot of people, you know, I'm in this camp kind of believe that it's not healthy for the ecosystem, like for the hundreds and millions of dollars that's being stored in value on maybe DRC-20 or these other meta protocols that, you know, the founder of the protocol that the meta protocols built on is, you know, kind of doing a whiplash blog post, right? The stability of the foundation that these meta protocols are built on kind of comes into question, right? And in this space in particular, you know, the entire crypto space is built on social consensus. Like, it's incredibly important that, you know, we have a set of ideas that's planted into all the people's heads that are using a protocol. Otherwise, we really, it's very hard to have a protocol. So, you know, do you, like, I highly value the stability and predictability of when I use a protocol that there's a set of rules and that, you know, if they're going to change going forward, that happens slowly and that happens with a very clear plan and it definitely doesn't change the events that have happened in the past. And I know I'm framing it and hear a little bit, a little bit weird, but like, do you value that stability like a lot of us do and understand why there's people that are frustrated when, you know, you kind of force, you know, go-mote to have to, you know, put out a statement of what will happen if Casey's proposal goes through and all of these people are from really, there's a lot of these tiny meta-protocols case where I'm hearing these conversations and they're just, people just don't know what's about in description anymore. That is kind of the byproduct of your post, right? There's just a lot of debate and I think that's healthy because it forces a conversation, but at the same time, you know, it's just very hard to store value in a protocol that has the founder kind of doing sort of like whiplash on things like this. Like I just really like a clear kind of roadmap and plan for the future that I can, you know, kind of predictably, you know, base decisions on and I just don't feel like I have that here and I think there's a lot of people that feel like that and maybe that's just how you think things are right now because we're not, you know, at the one point oh, yet, but there's a lot of us who who really do value that and I want to just kind of, if I make any point today, it would be that the stability and just predictability, especially around, you know, past decisions that people have made based on a set of rules, we value that very highly much higher than any technical aspect. Yeah, I mean, I think that's fair. I think the thing is is that people really need to separate like ideas from action, right? I have a lot of ideas. I have many thoughts about the protocol. I like to be able to express those thoughts, but that's very different from what happens, right? Me bringing a proposal to the table is just bringing a proposal to the table. And I think that it's just really important to separate that like a proposal, which is an idea from, you know, chaotic or unstable protocol development, right? If I can't have ideas and ask the community about things, ultimately I can't even really find figure out what is and isn't a good idea because I have no way of like asking the community what they think and figuring out what the community thinks. So I don't know. I mean, I definitely will continue, you know, having unfettered ideas, but also keep in mind that those ideas are different from actually doing anything. And I do very much value all of the things that you set are important, right? But ultimately, you know, I mean, let's say that there was like some critical flaw in the protocol, right? Something way worse than inscription numbers, something that really had to be fixed, even if that was a like a deeply critical flaw, even if that, you know, required some, you know, unpleasant change to the protocol, you know, that possibility would have to be floated, you know what I mean? So yeah, got to have ideas, got to bring them to the table. And then, you know, I think there's a kind of tendency for people to panic really hard in the space. And especially because I don't view myself like as a dictator, I actually have been listening to a lot of the spaces that have been going on. I like to lurk in some of them with alts that shall remain nameless. So yeah, I don't view it as my job to, you know, sort of have an idea and then just push it through regardless of what people think. I view my job as having ideas in sort of my like Casey Hat and then in my, you know, developer hat to implement the ideas that are best, regardless of those are my idea or not. So yeah, I'd say that, yeah, I value all the same things as you, but yeah, I will keep having unfettered opinions, regardless of what those might be if I think that they're correct or if I'm curious about what other people think about them. Yeah, and I'd just like to add on top of this, like, stability in this case also doesn't mean that we ignore problems like we're engineers. So if there's like a faulty beam in the foundation, we at least have to point it out. And stability doesn't mean like stagnation and not being able to change anything. Like I agree that we have to kind of come up with a way to better communicate kind of our plans. We've not really been very good at that. Basically, just use GitHub to do these things, but we do have to talk about them and shouldn't ignore them. And especially like for the inscription numbers, I mean, you, I have a question for the United's like, you said that you always pass around these numbers and you put them, I mean, I know on or.io, you basically in your path, you use the inscription number as kind of the main way to get the inscription. But like you kind of ignore this whole class of inscriptions, the kind of cursed inscriptions which have already have an unstable inscription number. Like they are inherently unstable. So you can't really use the negative inscription number as a way to like reliably get inscriptions. So it is already kind of a problem like you, by just like ignoring kind of this problem and only sticking to the positive inscription numbers, it makes it impossible to kind of use inscriptions that are in another input that use more complex behaviors like having a parent. So we kind of have to find a good kind of solution to that. And inscription numbers in itself never were kind of a big part of, I mean, I think in the docs, we never once mentioned inscription numbers. And we always kind of encourage people to use kind of inscription IDs as the way to get their inscription out. So I think it should be very important to kind of like make people use inscription IDs because that is kind of the unique identifier that uniquely identifies any kind of inscription and there's no ambiguity about that. So yeah, just throw that out there and kind of see how you think about that. I totally do hear that like where ordinals is at today is not where you in KC thought it would be at a year ago and that people have used it in extremely different, in an extremely different manner than you guys had probably expected. But mentally, I think I like the curse inscription thing, if we just like stay the course with curse inscriptions, my personal view of kind of how this plays out is if you do the blessing the way you guys had come up with, I don't really see a reason for why like long term you would ever need to like be creating these curse inscriptions. I think it would be this kind of small class of kind of early inscriptions and fundamentally like there just wouldn't be that much of a need to you know do things with curse inscriptions like if you if you make the multiple inscriptions in a single transaction, if you bless that, I just I don't really see why people would ever be creating curse inscriptions in the future. I don't think it's I really don't think it's like that that big of a deal. There's a couple hundred thousand of these you know after you bless them it's like they're just going to be there is like these kind of cool artifacts but everything will have positive inscription numbers basically so I don't really think it's that much of a concern like we do show the IDs for in the URL for example for the inscription numbers instead of the inscription numbers for curse inscriptions on our site so you know definitely understand that there's a difference between these two sets of numbers and I think I'm going to be honest like I know technically it's very yucky but as far as a solution that I think made a lot of hearty happy I do think curse inscriptions achieve that and I think there's something to be said for that despite making it hard to implement an indexer. So there is actually a few sources of potential sources of curse inscriptions in the future. This is kind of one thing like that I've realized working with the protocol that I kind of didn't realize right away is that there just tends to be this long tail of like weird but desirable things to recognize. So one of them for example is sticking inscriptions in the taproot script annex the script annex or sorry the signature annex. The signature annex is a arbitrary string of bytes which is committed to by a taproot signature and the advantage of putting a inscription in the annex is that it wouldn't require a two transaction commit reveal pattern to make an inscription. You would be able to make a inscription in a single transaction just publish it and there you go no no commit and reveal which would be really nice because then you don't have to pay more for the two transactions and then you also don't have to worry about this like intermediate transaction getting stuck. There's also the idea that maybe you could come up with a more efficient encoding of inscriptions so that they would be smaller. Those are two examples and I don't want to like overstate them but it's just sort of in my experience working with the protocol that there's this like oh yeah and then also there are different fields that you might want to add so for example just as an example you might want to well yeah you might want to add that's that's that's actually complicated I won't talk about that but there are like potential protocol upgrades that could be new sources of inscriptions and just working with the protocol it's it's kind of come to my attention that like yeah there's there's actually a long tail of these things and so I wouldn't I wouldn't assume that there won't be more cursive inscriptions in the future I think probably the way that we would try to handle that in the future is maybe not even going through a period where they're cursed just these new things simply aren't recognized below a block height although I would actually say that yeah being able to avoid that sort of coordination is nice so yeah rambling but main point is like yeah there's potentially sources of more cursed inscriptions that you kind of want as as as a consequence of upgrading and improving the protocol didn't you just recently find two new classes of curse inscriptions after a quick little conversation on Twitter yes that is that is indeed the case I for yeah I I recently wrote a PR to refactor inscription parsing this is specifically to it doesn't change like any behavior except for the recognition of I believe four cursed inscriptions inscriptions the idea was to make it less likely that there would be certain kinds of cursed inscriptions in the future and these these four cursed inscriptions they were one inscription that had a duplicate field previous previously duplicate field inscriptions weren't recognized at all and sorry three inscriptions with a duplicate field one inscription with a incomplete field where the field tag happened right at the end of the envelope so field tag and then op-end def and both of these weren't both of these weren't recognized as as inscriptions beforehand and I think Cypher did you do all of these are these all your all your is it are they all you're doing no no I have lots of busted inscriptions but I don't believe that specific set is mine but I notice you didn't point out that the minimal op codes the people who used op one according to the old documentation because that was what I was pointing out with that comment I love that you found like four completely different cursed inscriptions than the ones I was looking at yeah the op code ones yeah those are another possible source of of cursed inscriptions that potentially we would want to add that that would make let's see would that make encoding yeah that would make that would make inscriptions more efficient it would mean every tag would be I think one bite smaller yeah that's another potential source of of cursed inscriptions so yeah it's just like there's there's a lot of these all right I want to keep this a little bit more general for now we have some hands raised I don't know if Trevor or Randall was first but if one of you knows who is first feel free uh Randall was first okay um yeah I just had a comment I wanted to make um so I think from day one there have been like two stable canonical identifiers and then one uh unstable identifier right so ordinal numbers are very stable and they're um just like based on the state of the chain they're based on the transaction graph and then inscription IDs are also stable canonical identifiers and they're based on the transaction ID right so other than uh you know like maybe there's a reorg and somebody double spends an inscription or something um otherwise like they don't change and those two identifiers have been very stable and very resistant to bugs like um we as far as I know there haven't been any bugs in the indexer that have had it just like change you know ordinal numbers or something like those have been very very robust and um you know the inscription numbers are the ones that have been really unstable and I think the team has you know done a lot of work to try to keep them stable and and that's been a burden and if you take a step back a little bit it seems like the things that people want inscription numbers for kind of fall into a couple buckets um one of them is that people want inscription numbers for relative ordering of inscriptions if you're building some meta protocol that that cares about like partial ordering like which inscription came before another one you can't really use either of the stable inscriptions for that because one of them is a transaction number which has like no ordering in it and then the other one is an ordinal number which um you know has to deal with when this that was mined but has nothing to do with the actual inscription in terms of like when it was created so you know BRC 20s or if you're doing some other protocol where you care about like ordering of inscriptions then then you you need like partial ordering of inscriptions um the other another use case is people use inscription ranges to bucket collections so if you go on like an inscription explorer you'll see the Fubara inscription is from range x to y and that's like a handy way that people can say like these things were all inscribed together and there's like a cluster of them and then I'd say the third one is um sort of like numeristic concern like people care about having a particular number so I would just propose that maybe um a lot of the problems that are solved by inscription numbers would be better served by having another stable identifier that has partial ordering in it that's based on something like block height right something that's like not going to change as we add more parsing rules or as we like iterate on the indexer we're not going to rework the chain because we fixed bugs in the indexer so if if we had like a canonical stable identifier or maybe not even canonical but like a stable identifier for inscriptions that encoded some sense of ordering then I wonder if a lot of these other use cases would be better served and maybe um some of the pressure to deal with keeping inscription numbers stable would be alleviated yeah I really like the idea of the block height numbering because I mean we do something similar right now like the recently I wanted to like kind of show inscriptions inside of a block and basically what we did there is to partition the inscription numbers across every block so very block just store the first first inscription with the first last inscription and then the first and then the last of both of these um and having kind of a number that's tied to the block height would make that easier and I think it wouldn't be so contentious um I don't know maybe Leonidas what what do you think of of that kind of this well it and to be clear like I think there's still going to be some users that want inscription number and maybe there's something special that needs to be done for kind of historic inscription numbers because a lot of people I think in the community that kind of got ordnance to where it is you know might have been speculating around particular numbers or something so like putting a pin in that um you know it might be something where there's still like a semi stable inscription number but there's this other identifier that has ordering and people who care about ordering for like meta protocols or something and abusing that I don't know yeah yeah I mean I think yeah the the proposal would be like to have this this height number in addition to the inscription numbers and kind of trying to encapsulate the inscription numbers in a good way so that it's easy to understand and kind of doesn't pollute too much of the code base and then I think it would be manageable um yeah um we tried to invite kind of a range of voices up here and I uh and I want to I run a respect that uh Trevor and Subwon Cave had their hands up all uh tap Trevor and then Subwon Cave yeah thanks Charlie I'm really interested to find out what Casey's all to count is if anyone has any ideas definitely DM me but um Casey I want to know because you mentioned there's a really long tail possible inscriptions and that's a key question that I didn't know until now and I was curious about in terms of like how would it be possible to reach a hundred percent coverage of these and you know how would we not sort of like repeat the same issue I guess a year from now if like they keep popping up more and more and then I think this goes down to like how do you define an inscription on a technical level and like where does that limit end in terms of like what are the minimum requirements of and it's for something to be concerned in inscription yeah it's it's very tricky to nail down um you know uh so for example a lot of the Chris some plenty of Chris's inscriptions that have become recognized have been due to me realizing that there were bugs in the um inscription parsing code that uh sort of didn't didn't recognize inscriptions that obviously should be recognized um so those are really hard to foresee the recent um PR that refactor inscription parsing gave me sort of more confidence because it's a sort of it kind of separates recognition from interpretation um but then other things are just completely unexpected like for example putting inscriptions in the script annex in the signature annex um that was completely unexpected uh that was a used yeager who's a bitcoin core um uh bitcoin core developer who i don't remember how i first saw it i think it was in a bitcoin dev mailing post mailing list post or in a issue on github where he was like hey like you can put the inscriptions in the uh script annex and the signature annex and that's uh way way better um so yeah it's it's very it's very hard to anticipate you know um i guess it is something that put it in the script annex uh that would be sort of the most optimal way to do it and if the encoding were very simple then you know maybe that would be pretty reasonable um but you kind of never know like if there's some obviously beneficial way to do things it would be a uh shame not to do them and also for example changes to the bitcoin protocol um if there was a new output type for example that had some benefit um and we were still putting inscriptions in the witness then maybe there would be a different way to uh uh put things in into a different way to do inscriptions that we couldn't even anticipate at this point so yeah i want the definition of what um is an inscription to be as simple as possible but it's it's it's challenging um one one additional challenging thing about inscription numbers is is for as they are is for um alternative implementations so if you want to write an ord indexer um you sort of have to be like bug for bug compatible with ord itself including all the super weird rules about what makes things um curse so it's not just a burden for us it's a burden for other people writing indexers but yeah i just saw the question of like what's the definite inscription definition of inscription uh it's it's moving towards anything that has a valid envelope but it's uh it's it's tricky to just make promises about that we hear you on the indexer kc sub 1k has had their hand up for a long time and i throw it to sub 1k and then either dany or elok hey thanks guys really appreciate you taking the time to put on this space i just want to make one quick comment and then maybe ask sort of one question um one of the things that i just wanted to bring bring up briefly is sort of kc on your point about sharing you know your ideas as well as everyone that's on the ord team i think um you know collectively as a community we all really appreciate you know any ideas that you may have with respect to the protocol i think the issue with respect to why it's so contentious over the inscription numbers is because of how it was sort of characterized right like at the end of the day the way that you guys discuss or even present an idea does matter like the context matters the way that you talk about it the word choice is super super important and i think a lot of people felt concerned when the labeling or the narrative that was sort of communicated around inscription numbers was that they were a shit coin or anything that's not on bitcoins isn't real it really kind of demeans in a lot of ways like a really important i think part of this holistic community right the the market participants right the the collectors the people that actually value it whether it's for a monetary reason or whether it's for a personal reason right like if somebody bought the inscription number of their birth date or or whatever it is right um those are all sort of an important aspects that you know have value to different people that really make up this community and i think at the end of the day people were really just looking for empathy right i think the collectors are very uh you know empathetic to the argument about why inscription numbers are you know presented challenge i don't think that most collectors um don't want to i don't think that collectors want to maintain the status quo you know in many ways i think many of us want to just preserve that history and that legacy of what was if you want to label it as sort of like a v1 for for ordinals and i think many people have shown kind of you know shown like a lot of appreciation for sort of the proposal that Danny presented with respect to to grandfather and what's kind of been done to date and then i think are very much sort of in favor for finding a new resolution that kind of you know um better better better helps the protocol be a little bit more more scalable or at least easy um for for development or for the developer here so just to kind of conclude there i think um what was really missing from this this discussion was just uh empathy for the market participants right like we have a lot of respect for the developers here a lot of you guys are gig of brains we really love to hear your thoughts and perspective but we just want equal sort of respect for the people that have shown up here champion ordinals voted with their money invested or trying to build businesses here so i just wanted to say that um and then lastly would love to kind of get your perspective on grandfathering inscription numbers sure yeah let me just respond to the first thing yeah i mean point super well taken um i think i was i tried to be pretty neutral in the blog post i don't think i said inscription numbers are a shit coin in the blog post but yeah i don't know if i said uh inscription numbers are a shit coin but yeah i mean uh i think it's important that you know in a in a in a contentious sort of discussion like this right that uh that that that i try to remain uh you know whatever uh you know compassionate and empathetic i actually really do think that's important i think uh i i i i like making jokes and i like being funny but um it's definitely not my intention to uh like you know make people feel disrespected or to undermine their uh sort of effort or their contributions or even just money they've spent right i mean you spend money on something you uh care about how things develop um i guess with the exception of uh like uh bs viers and like Craig Wright supporters like listen like grow he's not satoshi uh that's that's the line in the sand um but yeah and sorry your your next question was oh yeah about um grandfathering grandfathering in uh old inscriptions i'm kind of with two minds of that um i think that if if if for example there was some inscriptions that had stable inscription numbers and some that didn't have stable inscription numbers that might sort of be a bad scenario right um because you know you would have some inscriptions that could be referred to by inscription numbers and i think it'd be you know attempting to do things like put them in urls other inscriptions that couldn't it might be hard to get that right it might be surprising for users um uh so yeah and and it would require adding to the code sort of this big list of the old cursed inscriptions so that they could be numbered correctly um which uh that's okay it might be it might still maintain a lot of the complexity of the code and it would also mean that you know for example if we did this thing with uh inscriptions being allowed to use the minimal data push opcodes uh that um they would uh sort of generate new old cursed inscriptions that we'd have to figure out how those like fit into the list um so yeah i haven't really seen a compromise position that i think is great i kind of think that two viable sort of alternatives or like you know not do it at all and just kind of maintain the you know brutal reality that the devs have to like uh just suffer and cry and and keep the numbers stable or just kind of rip the bandaid off and make them all unstable um i think they're sort of like going going halfway might just might just be a little bit confusing i will chime in and say i'm a kind of sorry here for helping amplify the inscription numbers are a shitcoin line i didn't anticipate uh my initial tweet uh being as circulated as it is and so i i apologize for that i love inscription numbers and my intent for inscriptions of our shitcoin it's a demonstrate my kind of lighthearted uh view on them and it was kind of a joke but um yeah i i do feel kind of bad because that has framed the argument in a in a hostile way and i'll try to do that i'm still personally coming to terms that i think a lot of us are kind of in terms of our prominence in the bitcoin space and uh trying to dial in some of our own weird idiosyncratic ways of communicating so i'll i'll just you know own that one myself yeah it's it's fucking weird like i never thought that i would be in a position where i could write a blog post not that inscription number blog post the the runes blog post of like a really thoroughly half-baked idea and then see like multiple implementations a day later like i'm like that's fucking weird uh so yeah still trying to get that right and still trying to get the uh you know newfound notoriety right like uh like charlie says i also apologize but i do want to retain the ability to make jokes that to me is a very important thing yeah still gonna make jokes but uh we gotta maybe it's been half a cycle more on the joke unfortunately that is the with great power comes great responsibility quote spider man's dad i'll throw this to uh Danny and then probably e-lock e-lock was first one e-lock you go ahead okay e-lock yes so if you had the time before we can blame us on rindale for jail breaking out the dick but if you had like more time to like figure out what's in the envelope and maybe like make numbers more stable like if we were to do it all again you think we'd still be in the same situation because like how hard it is and other inscription is or would we like like if we had planned it out longer like you had done with the ordinal theory do you think we could have like made it more stable at the good go yeah i think the thing is is uh maybe like yeah maybe if me and raff had spent like six months like really doing everything um but it's it's very hard to predict and a lot of things are just you you need to get experience with it in order to learn how it's used and to learn you know how things are going to work like for example we had some ideas about you know how we were gonna design future features when we released uh when we sort of open the floodgates on mainnet um but it was really through using them and it was really through kind of reflection on how the protocol is used so actually i think we could have gotten uh in some respects the protocol might have been more stable but in some respects it might have been worse if um if we had tried to like map everything out one example of the way that things might have been worse is that i was originally thinking that for parent child inscriptions that if you used if you had any inscription in the inputs it would become apparent of the inscriptions that were created in the outputs um but eventually i realized that there's all this like an inscription to tritus that's floating around all these like junk inscriptions um or you have like an input that has multiple inscriptions but you only want one of them to be the parent um and so we changed the you know parent child spec to actually have every inscription explicitly in code which inscription in the inputs you want to be the parents so yeah it's like yeah it's a double ed sword we could have like you know sort of like tried to like gigabrain it out um and uh you know made it uh you know as perfect as possible i think the real mistake was just um not i think the best thing that we could have done is just like say from the beginning and just hammered home like inscription numbers are not stable that they're not you know i think we would have messaged like hey they're not going to change dramatically but they're going to be unstable and maybe at some future point we can commit to stability once we have enough experience with the protocol that's that's maybe what i would have done uh differently but as far as like getting it right from the very beginning oof that's very hard that's very hard so yeah i remember that time like i think we could have like gotten most of the curse inscriptions like the biggest one is like not being in the first input um but at the time i remember we were like holding twitter spaces and there was like no one really cared we had like four or five six people in the twitter space uh and then until we got that's generous we had twitter spaces where nobody came where's like we had raps sitting around for like hours in a twitter space yeah literally no one no one cared and we were like like oh let's just get inscriptions out like oh it's a bit hacky but whatever uh maybe people will come to our twitter spaces uh and yeah that's that's where we're here uh now kind of so that new opportunity that you were talking about luke dash jr said that oh then the or disrespector is already going to cover that so maybe you could go look at his um or disrespector to find some like like luke dash jr gigabrain ways through the envelope that they're predicting are going to be doing yeah good idea they're going to have they like i just i just need uh uh yeah like if they gas at a good implementation and then filter it out uh maybe i can use it uh yeah that would be funny uh Danny do you want to chime in here yeah so we've been talking about inscription numbers and i think it's good to reflect a little more on the description ID right that's one of the stable identifiers right there's the orno ID that's the other stable identifier in ornos and that one is on the satoshi itself it's not the after one script you know right so inscription ID um is that stable and for the inscription and it's based on so why is that important and or why is the inscription ID important well uh and what what exactly is the right it's the basically the long prefix of the inscription ID right is the transaction hash and that's something that's known by every you know everyone in bitcoin right every block explorer every bitcoin node understands a you know bitcoin transaction hash it's also important ornose because that is actually where the inscription is right description actually lives that inscription don't get passed around right they actually are at that inscription right in the bitcoin uh blockchain and so it's like the inscription ID is actually quite a useful and important um you know piece of data because it encodes basically this transaction hash that's everyone understands how to how to parse it that's where the inscription is it also is actually the time of the inscription so we've been talking about the sequencing right the fact that the inscription number was useful because you could look at two numbers and sequence them uh so what what you're kind of missing I guess with the transaction hash where an inscription ID is a way to sequence them but every transaction in bitcoin is sequence right you know which block it's in and you know which offset is in the block so you could directly just have a number that's the transaction number which is you know what is the sequence of this transaction and everyone agrees on that there's no disagreement on this for every every single transaction hash and every single inscription ID right so if you have basically that numbering you could just look at any two inscriptions and see the order of them of course within the tracing action you can have multiple inscriptions then I mean basically they came at the same time but within that transaction there's some offset and you know that in the ID too because the ID of the inscription ID has an offset at the end which is also very easily parsable right you can there's a number it's i followed by the integer and and so I just kind of highlighting that inscription ID is actually very useful for basically everyone in ordinals and also it's very it's close to a tie to bitcoin blockchain because it is a transaction hash so everyone in bitcoin understands basically a inscription ID and if you have this transaction ordering number in there you can also easily understand the sequence of that inscription so so you do have a stable identifier for all inscriptions with something that has a sequencing property of it kind of built in with this added understanding of the transaction ordering so just just so people can kind of appreciate the inscription ID a little more but Danny the issue is this is my issue with the block I think like if we don't decide what is valid or invalid yes you have like a sequence but new things can jump into that sequence right and fundamentally like the way all these meta protocol is like again 90% of the activity on this protocol is being used is they're treating it like a blockchain a blockchain is just a giant yeah it's grouped into blocks but it's really just a very very long list of an order of transactions and that is what like people are using the actual ordinals inscriptions as so if you were to go back in time yeah it's great that you have this amazing record of transactions but bitcoin would never tolerate being able to go back and like add you know a transaction that wasn't previously seen into an old block that would change the entire future state of the chain so I don't understand how the block height or this inscription ID ID solves that issue which is like very courted this conversation of what is about inscription at a certain point in time right so that's kind of the big thing is you know what how do you define the inscription itself right and I think what DNI is arguing is that the inscription number is what actually defines or stamps that inscription as a valid inscription right versus the fact that yeah there's I think that's kind of and I think there's also the the difference between defining the protocol and defining or working on implementation of the protocol I think in or or knows it's been kind of they're happening at the same time and often our conversations mix the two so it's I think the thing that perhaps you want to really address is how do we go about defining the inscription in the protocol versus the implementations which is often what we talk about here yeah like at the core of this conversation like this this is basically this high level summary for people listening of what happened right Casey outlined it like a senator to in the documentation that you know could be interpreted probably many ways if you gave you know 100 developers that couple of sentences around the ordnance envelope and then you told those hundred developers here's a bit coin full note here's these two sentences go find every valid inscription from the past you know year you would get a hundred different sets of inscriptions it just wouldn't be possible right and and I think I hope the space is kind of debunked this idea that there's the truth is on chain and there's clearly you know the truth of what exactly is valid is on chain I think fundamentally like it's very hard to determine you know what is or isn't a valid inscription based on just looking at the Bitcoin blockchain and if you did the test I gave I think you would very quickly see that people are not this is not as intuitive of a thing to implement an index report is as just a few sentences so in light of that what happened was we had to fall back because the market really does want predictability and stability and know either something is valid or invalid or there or not like this is very important to the protocol and people putting money storing value in it so what basically happened was we fell back on the inscription numbers as the the source of truth there right and I just I don't see it being a tenable state to say that you know based on the original writing of the proposal you did T.C. that we're just going to kind of throw up our hands and say there's no longer this concept of what's valid or invalid it's going to just infinitely change into the future I think you lose this property of stability that's just incredibly important and I think it would be very hard to make a convincing argument for why people should come here and store value when we can't even determine you know like we can't even tell you that something's valid or invalid because in the future it could always change to be invalidated or validated that's not that's not to me a potential auction that really makes a sense here so the market kind of clearly said so so much so that it wants the valid rule that it just voted by itself that inscription numbers are how we determine if it's a valid inscription or not we relied on the code instead and again I'm not saying that's ideal or perfect but that is what happened and I think the proposal the proposal you gave just kind of gave up on this idea about inscriptions which I do find like pretty pretty problematic not just for you know again the majority of users of the protocol but just from an optics perspective from a user perspective it's very it's very challenging to see why removing that property would be valuable can I can I jump in here for a quick second I think I think there's something interesting emerging from this conversation which I hadn't really realized right now because it's kind of like the two things that are at odds here a little bit and I'm going to argue against myself here which is that there's like the code is law argument is almost at odds with the blockchain is the truth argument here right so essentially what was interesting that Casey said was that like different indexers like the indexer has to match the ord implementation bug for bug right and so I think that's the kind of that one of the cruxes of this is that if we want to have like indexer diversity where we imagine we have like a hundred different augmentations of an ord indexer and in go which is like what cypher is developing and rust which the ord protocol is based in in you know elixir and whatever else comes next you know it's going to be very hard because one indexer going to get a different ord number than the ord one so essentially that does require like code is law I think I wonder if that perception changes over time as we get more indexer diversity and you know there's really like multiple problems here and so I think it's like kind of important to try to like summarize the different problems and try to see like finding a common thread here is like very is like the real challenge right so governance is is one of the challenges the overall dev loop for like adding updates and how we view how we parse the inscriptions and new ones that pop up that we didn't recognize before I mean Casey has stated that he doesn't want to define what an inscription is and he gave some reasons for that being that there's maybe bugs in the code that he doesn't know about yet or there may be new improvements that people could find like that Bitcoin core developer there could be changes to Bitcoin in the future it seems like there you know people want these stable numbers like we also think it's pretty clear like they you know they want to buy their birthday or something they're attached to a significance of their number bugs are everywhere in this space you know it's like in software like it's funny how like software engineers are like oh it's like it's a meme it's a joke among software engineers right and so we can't prevent bugs there's potentially infinite or multi-year long tail here and if it includes changes in Bitcoin in the future that maybe if implemented could dramatically improve Ornals UX like we should be open to that right and so you know I've pretty much in my experience as Ornals I've kind of treated it's like the code is lost it doesn't run if it doesn't appear on the Ornals site then it's not a valid inscription you know and people can people are mostly testing it with you know submitting an inscription submitting it again there's not really good test net you know and if you're going to spend tens of thousand dollars on it describes something big like it's kind of important to have a good test net and testing the different explorers is really hit or miss as well without this but I did kind of warm up to like Danny's idea about inscribing the numbers because that could in some way solve the bug for bug thing but it would only solve it looking backwards in the sense that like the the ideal governance model I do think is like the block some type of block high activation right if you're adding change in if we're broadening the definition of what an inscription is if there's something to improve the UX a bug is on etc that's going to reveal new inscriptions having like a block high activation where you could inscribe the numbers and then all the different you know indexes catch up that point the question is like after that point you know how do we match the inscription numbers or do we just do like I'm totally about doing way the inscription numbers in the future like I think it's actually something that could be considered or even voted on I think that for me changing them going backwards I don't I don't think is a good option in any way but I think essentially removing them in the future that could actually solve the issue so you know I want to ask Casey like the cursing descriptions are I think cursing are actually kind of cool like I think that they could have some kind of value and that as the coverage of inscriptions gets higher percentage like as we get to like nine I don't know a percentage right right right now you know like theoretically we're 95% but as we get to like 96 97 98 like cursing description will be harder to make which could make them more valuable and could even incentive us people to find edge cases faster so I kind of like the idea of like a junk drawer where like and you know you could maintain the the cursing description numbers with the block kind activation as well I kind of like that junk drawer approach you know allowing us to maintain and again like if we just if we get rid of inscription numbers going forward which also I'm fine with you know that kind of fixes a lot of things anyway so like it seems like there's multiple ways to skin this cat or like there's like you know you got it we got to use different tools here to solve like different parts of the problem like you know you need like to like use the chisel on the the block and then we need to sand it down and then we need to you know polish it etc so I'm just curious like Casey's thoughts on the block at block at activation and then also just yeah the the whole brain that might just did yeah totally I mean governance is a really tricky problem I think a lot of the governance structures that projects users are just kind of bad like voting and dows and all sorts of stuff but yeah it's it's tricky and like I think the answer is kind of like uh strangely the best governance structure is the same as Bitcoin which is that you just sort of have this like an archaic mob of people using the protocol and the devs can like propose things but ultimately it's up to the mob whether or not they run the new code or whether they fork or you know whatever um yeah and the the second part um sort of I I still I mean like I don't I think block height activation is a good idea um and I kind of actually do think that if if we are going to continue to have to add cursing inscriptions if we are going to have cursing inscription numbers it is kind of nice to let people immediately start experimenting with the feature and seeing those inscriptions as cursing inscriptions on ordinals.com and then blessing them later it's sort of a it provides sort of like a nice uh kind of playground effect if if we are going to have uh cursing inscription numbers but yeah I think that um going forward yeah for uh unblessing or whatever changes are made it has to be at a block height and we need to figure out okay you know how much notice is enough um and you know what the how we do that which I have no idea I have no idea like okay like for all the stakeholders if we were let's let's say we're going to make some change that's like not contentious this is actually an interesting question that I kind of want to ask people let's say we're going to make a change that was not content contentious everybody agreed what we're going to do but it did require some coordination from like a lot of people from like wallets or you know whatever um how much lead time and it was going to be based on a block height activation how much lead time would be enough uh one month two months six months a year uh so yeah I'm kind of curious the people on stage what you guys think lean i just go for it yeah so I think to me like personally I think the protocols like pretty like case you created like you or Af like ordinarily like you guys created a really like solid protocol I think it actually works really well in its current state and I think we do need to make some changes in the future but as far as I'm concerned like after the 1.0 release you know I really think it should be slowed down and it's more of like uh you know every six months we kind of you know do or release once a year we do or release you know and you know very much prepare and debate and have lots of conversations weeding up to that release that everybody can kind of get on board with and over time that should extend and hopefully hopefully you know you can get to a state like Bitcoin where you don't need to be updating uh too often because to me like I get that we're we're in the beta or the alpha right now and we need to like ship faster and like you know massive props to you guys I can just see you've been working really hard uh the last few months here and and that's you know in many ways like thank you us sort of job so I really think that's important these are there's some core features before 1.0 they need to get out I just think after that I don't want us to be in the state of instability still where I feel like you know two weeks ago you know in my head everything was like pretty stable and then now like everybody's questioning what's about inscription and our inscription number is going to change and this sort of thing I don't want moments like this after the 1.0 release I think it's more important to the protocol that we just basically slow way down rather than you know optimize for like what are potentially like interesting ideas but that ultimately I think do a lot of people watching this space and a lot of people in this space just I honestly have no idea what to expect six months from now that's genuinely my take as someone who uh very much sends a lot of time in this space so I'm imagining a lot of people are kind of in that vote and it kind of feels like we're along for the ride somewhat and I would very much like to be able to know in the back of my head you know there's a 98% chance that this is what the protocol will look like six months from now and I just don't think we have that today and I want us to be trying to get much closer to that state where I have that like 98 99% assurance of what the protocol looks like six months from now so slow it down after the 1.0 would be my main takeaway like a lot so yeah all uh being go ahead one K or who was that uh that was uh that was me uh I just okay go ahead Raf yeah so I think I mean that's also what we want so uh we want to get uh one point out kind of one point oh would be the original features we envisioned in like December and January kind of uh that were kind of thrown across the uh GitHub issues um it's probably gonna be out in like six months or a year like we're right now at at o.9.0 but it's gonna be o.10 next not o.1 like not the first in one even though it says nine just so people do not expect like version one to come out like anytime like soon um but yeah that's definitely the the direction we want to do as well like it's it's a it's a pain maintaining it so um having some stability is great and kind of letting you what the the core philosophy is like you want simple rules and then you want kind of complexity to build up on top of it and uh yeah so you have to have a stable base for for that to happen and that's definitely the direction we want to take so I just noticed that uh we have uh Domo on stage uh Domo uh good to see you man I don't know if you uh just want to sort of uh share your thoughts on the the whole situation from the uh you know BRC 20 perspective sure what's up everyone um yeah like I think um my initial reaction was like instinctual all this is bad I don't want this because it was it was again the messaging it was sprung uh just out of the blue and I think the the devs in on the stage can can attest to this it it's not a great feeling being essentially told that you have to do something or force in a direction and my interpretation was that it was happening 100% and we were going to be force in direction so I think that was my initial instinctual reaction I think think you about it later having times to sit digest and see the community discusses been important and I think at the moment I'm neutral I think BRC 20 succeeds either way um I think the best outcome would be completely one way or the other I think half in the middle could cause problems so agree with that if you do decide to completely scrap ordering which is the base issue with the BRC 20 BRC 20 be finable just use an older implementation or define your own real set for what inscription is and if you decide to keep ordering great we get to have parity moving forward so that that's why the latest perspective in on the matter Domo I want to know what do you think about all these other meta-photocalls that don't have their act together quite like you guys like there's a lot of like just random collections that you know have a couple hundred people that care about them uh you know some of these smaller meta-photocalls like you guys for sure like you know fundamentally if you guys kind of get kicked off the protocol you can't rely on consensus um you're going to be able to have a really sound uh consensus yourselves like the community is large enough but there's a lot of meta-photocalls that are not where you're at right they don't have their act together and if they can't inherit the consensus and distributed nature of being able to have thousands of people running the indexers with you know ord on it like I don't think anybody's going to really be able to try and experiment with meta-photocalls anymore in the future because you're going to have to like like who's going to use a meta protocol where there's like four people around the world running the indexer like the value to me is that you know all these meta-photocalls like when you created BRC 20 you get to you know go check on every ordinal's explorer you guys didn't have to manage that consensus you inherited that kind of decentralization and security and distributed nature of all the people who subscribe to the ordinal's protocol and I'm just kind of concerned that like the future you know cool meta-photocalls that people create won't be able to be created if we don't allow people to continue to you know use ordinal's as a consensus yeah it's a great point and uh I think you you really have something there the smaller communities the meta-photocalls like the experimentation which I believe this protocol is all about um we'll suffer in that regard however like I also envision I think I've talked about this before like my visual idea of what word is and like obviously this differs to people on the stage it's a great portal into Bitcoin or specifically for Bitcoin's data availability layer right so if you were to go off in your own direction that portal into the data availability layer would be open to any other meta-procall right so I think they would be open to posting on this implementation of a prior word or whatever so I think the option would be available um so I see blesses hand us up and ctu's hand us up I will say we've got a lot of people in the audience and if you're just joining well into this conversation we were targeting maybe like two hours ideally which would give us about forty more minutes I think one thing that Aaron and I would we're hoping to try to do is try to get maybe some faces who aren't typically on like the normal winter spaces um so if you you know if you have an opinion or want to chime in um I try to be pretty in touch with the ecosystem so I do a little due diligence but I would like to you know if you've never been up on stage you want to talk to Casey or Raf or any one of us um feel free to request and I'll I would love to bring um some more voices up and I will uh point to uh bless you go ahead and speak your peace you know what's up uh it's bless here so I feel like um a lot of the conversation sometimes up here feels like uh like social consensus versus like the team and I think uh at this point I've tweeted a bunch of things in my opinions and it feels like a lot of people support what I'm trying to say where I genuinely believe like inscription numbers uh did they if they were changed for the better if this is going to help the team improve things and even if they're unstable forever uh I think it's going to be a good thing because what I personally came here for and what a lot of other people came here for is uh to put data and artwork and different things on chain on bitcoin on like this you know and I wasn't expecting to like ordinals to be another blockchain for me to be like okay this is something that I believe is never going to change and this is like immutable I've always thought of like the protocols like experimental still but what wasn't experienced for me was a bitcoin so there's a lot of data on bitcoin that I think collectors still value sat like rarity sat rarity sat age all that different things that's immutable and and some people you know can say like oh Satoshi can wake up and change things whatever it will have like I personally think he's not gonna wake up and change things I do think if I'm gonna value like store like value into something it's gonna be on something more you know decentralized like bitcoin so I think there's a lot of people that agree with what I'm saying too that we wouldn't mind in description numbers changing if this means moving the protocol forward in a way that makes it easier for a lot of developers and and just like makes it clear that certain things are not immutable like if we just made it clear like yo these description numbers were never meant to be immutable and I think that's gonna be like a pretty you know if there's there's a lot of people that agreed to disagree with that but I think just the team versus like the people and the people's opinion I think there's more than one opinion in the people and that's just how I feel oh also I have a question Casey it would would this just be easier like would it just be helpful to move like like development forward if we do sequin summers would it just be helpful or is it like why are people so against it besides like I heard one argument was uh some people would choose sequins numbers over in description numbers and uh to me that's just like uh that would be like the market choosing like well this one is technically older and this one's technically number seven or this was number 16 now whatever if if people are choosing sequins numbers over in description numbers because they feel sequins numbers may be more unstable but maybe they're they might be more precise it might like you know have more things included that were meant to be included or were missed uh I think that's a good thing but what would this just be easier for development is out like is that only reason it's like one of the main reasons why you want to push this so fast uh yeah I mean it being easier for development is uh definitely I think sort of the main reason uh removing a lot of the edge cases sequins numbers are uh what me and Raf sort of called a uh the ordered uh inscription numbers the ordered unstable inscription numbers um we made a PR that uses them internally but I think the problem is that with exposing both of them is that I think people would just get confused uh they would get in confused what was an inscription number and what was a sequence number if they were um displayed together uh which is why we didn't expose them um yeah I think it's sort of like I think it would be a bad situation to expose both of them and just be like let the market decide I think that would be uh lead to sort of guaranteed fragmentation that might be worse than just picking one or the other so does adding the sequins number help like clean up the code having it in the back end yeah it does so um we were using the inscription number um we were using inscription inscription numbers as the primary key in a number of database tables what that means is that essentially the entries in the database table were ordered by our ordered by inscription number so that made a lot of sense when inscription numbers were sequential but when they became non-sequential then we had databases where the order was a whole bunch of uh cursed inscriptions which new with new inscriptions being added to the beginning of the table since they're higher negative numbers and it just thus have a lower primary key and new inscriptions being added to the end of the table um and that resulted in a lot of heinous code where you know to know the inscription numbers in a block you can't just have the beginning inscription number in the end inscription number you have to have the beginning blessed inscription number and the last blessed inscription number and the first cursed inscription number and last cursed inscription number and it made pagination kind of suck we would display inscriptions in a weird order in blocks and in other places so um switching to the sequence number internally uh let us do a lot of uh cleanups so now we use sequence number as the primary key to the database so everything is ordered by sequence number um and that helps clean up code for displaying what inscriptions are in a block as well as improves uh pagination when you know you sort of display a bunch of inscriptions on uh sort of in order and in the block um yep so that was a that was a nice win without having to change anything external um as I said before we're we're trying to let some people down and I let Danny and Subbuing Kay down love those guys um but we try kind of what we're thinking is trying to get um kind of a range of voices and if you haven't jumped on a Twitter space before and you're kind of a new face um I do invite you to speak uh all this and do diligence and maybe add you to the stage. To ever I know you got your hand up but I'm gonna throw it uh to um everyone's favorite Elon impersonator uh Adrian Adrian I saw you up here uh go for it yeah I shouldn't have a get the whole yeah sure acc good to good to finally speak to it's actually really interesting I really love the autumn uh I really love everything that is ordinals I think it's really cool um about description numbers I feel like we've reached kind of an impasse where you're looking at two different options of keeping them or not keeping them and everybody says okay this is the red pill and that's the blue pill but then nobody can agree which actually throws you down loop of segregation and which actually throws you into a loop of ultimate freedom it's like okay what do we do um would it be would it be possible to actually do both this is what I'm saying it's like basically do both and you're everywhere where you have an initial inscription number which is basically an assigned at the creation and then you have an official inscription number that basically changes as it does what if we did that is that possible is that a good idea yeah we we certainly could I guess my one worry is just one of confusion you know when you look up an inscription on a website that allows you to look up by inscription number uh do you know people might confuse looking up an inscription number by its inscription number or looking up its inscription number by the sequence number and in the same way people might refer to an inscription uh by its inscription number and other people interpret that as being the sequence number or vice versa um so I think the it would be kind of nice if both standards could live alongside and it'd be nice to be able to compare inscription sort of by absolute order using the sequence number but I think just the ambiguity would be um would be would be a problem people would get uh confused yeah that's one of my exams let's go to end here um yeah go for an euro cool yeah hey what's up everyone um I've been on some of these spaces recently and bowed to try to do a thorough them but I think this is important and um yeah hey Casey just want to say what's up it's really great to to have you back there's a certain energy in the space and you know your contributions are super valuable and kind of get they get get the uh get the people going you know either way so love that love your passion for all of this and I just want to say that you know I think uh real quick I think one thing that's super clear is like everyone here deserves a bit of a a group hug I think there's no one here that doesn't really care about ordinals or Bitcoin in the future of its exceeding especially those people on stage I mean I love that you know Leo can come and have you know the the con argument and that side express very strongly we listen to it and respond to it in a in a civil way I think you know this has been a really cool thing to actually be a part of so I think that's really big deal and that's made me very bullish on the people here um I did want to share one thing that I think's a perspective that I hadn't really seen shared a whole lot just yet but I think it's you know like ordinals are a lot of things like the community um has a lot of voices you know like I think we've represented a good number of them here on stage but um I think the one piece that we're I think all really committed to if we seriously care about you know decentralization like actually living out the values of the cypher punks of like making something interesting is like activating the community here and so I think like that means you know like we all want to have people be a more active part of the community like getting twitter spaces are amazing having you know talking is great but like we want more people you know in GitHub we want more people running talking nodes we want people writing code we want to make like all of that easier too you know and I think I already gave big out a shout out earlier but I think that was like usually awesome to see you know BG on GitHub and commenting you know I think like what we can do as a community to have some of these discussions um you know in some different formats is really healthy and I think that was very cool to see and I think hopefully we can have more of that going forward that I think like if we are looking at you know if we think about like instruction numbers versus you know no versus sequence numbers etc I think like there are other metrics we really want to care about and that's like you know how are we measuring and looking at the number of active participants in this and ornals you know and does that mean just the dollar amount spent for you know does it mean like the commits does it mean like the number of people who are actually um you know building things working on things so whatever we can do to I think um yeah I think the goal obviously is to preserve through digital artifacts um you know like on Bitcoin like on or the past I kind of an impact camp that whatever we can do to try to you know preserve what has been done is a good precedent to set and um looks forward you know as much as possible to make changes I think that's kind of a good general heuristic I know it's not always possible and I'm very much in the camp of like we want to build we don't you know I think the flip side of this idea of being more thoughtful having the dev team and the ornals team communicate out more um thoughtfully is definitely valid point but at the same point we don't want to kill the enthusiasm and like the experimentation because I think ornals enables a whole hell of a lot that's not possible on other chains you know like I mean I've just described different things that I just could not do on other chains and I want to be able to do that like I mean I'm experimenting with things I'm really excited about I know people others um there's a bunch of new artists that I've seen just in the last couple of months like who have joined this space way after inscription number sub 10k even I'm like well into the millions you know and they're creating their own vibe they're creating their own like style and I think that's really really cool you know and so we want to like think about that going forward how can we um make sure that like you know the best is yet to come we can preserve the past but we all have to really keep in mind that that a protocol has to change we have to have something set so we know what we're we're um we can expect but you know changes is a part of life like we I mean I'm a physician by training like I the human body changes I can't just say like you know set and stone this is how you're gonna be for life like the protocol has to evolve we just need a functional way to engage and so I think whatever we can do I don't know community to try to get more people like as active participants and like go and get up having you know more knowledge more awareness of these trade-offs earlier I think is gonna be super healthy and we have a chance to kind of set that standard here um you know for for other chains and I think if I think that's just something really cool and something I'm proud of you know with this whole like idea to actually live this cyberpunk's right code mantra I think it's uh it's really dope you know and I think um it's not that hard to get on get hub and do stuff so maybe we can try to do some of that I think they love us all that love it thanks Nero um let's go to loop and then solve yeah loop I brought you up here uh feel free to jump in if you are there okay it's going on everybody yeah case you get to get to chat um you know I feel like uh back in like January when ordinal's January and February and ordinals were popping off uh I was just seeing so many people you know make takes of the timeline and I was like I don't even think these people have read like the or no handbook uh so for for a while I was basically or there were no theory handbook I was basically just telling everybody on spaces and go and actually read this please um but yeah so good to good to finally be chatting I guess the one of my biggest questions is like I don't exactly know why this this decision like I think there's a lot of people that seem to want to rush this decision very quickly and I'm not sure why the timeline like why that timeline makes sense or why because that you know the way I look at it is like I think between and you know ordinals will be the future of digital art and and luxury digital art you know specifically like my my in my mind I'm seeing in you know 30 years people selling you know our version of Picasso on the blockchain and it's going to be early digital artists that you know created amazing things so curious kind of on in your mind one timing uh and like what what you feel like the the rush is to make this decision or if there's not really rushing your mind uh and then also just like if there's one or two really really like main points um to to keeping ordinals and keeping keeping these inscription numbers the way that they are um if there if there's like one or two main points that really kind of tip the scale for you uh you know besides being being the the writer of the the or my handbook yes far as um I kind of don't think there's a rush as far as timing it's mostly just because I've been getting my hands dirty with the code more and me and Raf have been working on more edge cases um I don't really think that there's a rush to make this decision especially if the decision is to change things um changes changes this ruptive um and it should be you know undertaken very carefully and with uh you know at great length and copious amounts of discussion um I I I don't think I understood your last question which is like what are my strongest arguments for keeping inscription number the same or what are the strongest sort of arguments both ways or or biggest factors in my mind if you could clarify yeah mainly just the biggest factor uh that you think we should keep them the same uh like is there is there if you know I think often uh with with debates there's usually you know a million points that people can make but people often make the decision based off one of two one or two uh you know main points and curious what kind of those are for you man um that's a really good question I think it's I I think actually that maybe the strongest question for me I mean I strongest factor for me for argument for keeping them the same is that in a system like this changes is very disruptive and there needs to be a very strong bias against making disruptive changes um that you know any proposal needs to overcome that that very strong bias I would also another thing that I think is important for me and this I actually got from lurking in a uh twitter space under my alt um was that you know as many people as we have on stage and as many people sort of share their opinions um there are going to be a lot of people who don't share their opinions because they're you know not involved they don't they don't know about the twitter space they don't speak English they don't think to contribute etc etc etc and I think that those people you know might be for or against the change but the fact that we know that they're not participating in the in the in the conversation is again a um uh bias towards keeping things the same you know um I think it could be sort of different if there was a you know small defined set of stakeholders that you know everybody could sort of be enumerated like I don't know like shareholders of a company or something like that where you could really um like make a list of everybody who cared and get them all in a room together and get everybody discussing but I think that you know discussions like this have to take into account all the people who can't participate in this in the discussion but are uh stakeholders so I think that's another another strong uh sort of reason for status quo bias yeah it's probably far more likely for someone who's actually you know joining the space to to to probably one things change I think I think it's like if you're if you care enough to actually join the space and make a point probably are more likely to you know to say the latter um I do I do see Trevor's hand up I'm so sorry Trevor I want to bring one more voice on end that will and I will uh happy in in a second uh I'll send it to Robert who uh just with the should just during the stage cool thanks Charlie um um firstly just thanks uh thanks the organizers putting this on for the community just really good to hear all the voices and and takes here like massively valuable um just a quick question for Casey uh was curious kind of like where um like uh potentially sort of like removing the uh scope of the ordinal team or like the like ordinal core team here from um taking ownership on it on inscription numbers kind of stack ranked in uh against like you know the other decisions here or the other like paths to the other paths forward um like if you guys are just considering you know kind of like completely doing away with it like where does that stack relative to the other uh options uh can clarify I'm not sure I understand the the question uh like how am I currently ranking the different options I guess so just like maybe just is it even uh is it even an option um that you're considering to like do away with inscription numbers and showing them like on ordinal.com and kind of putting that back into the hands of the the community um oh yeah like a sort of option where ordinal.com just sort of ceases to display inscription numbers um whoof yeah I don't know I mean I uh yeah I don't I haven't really thought about that as an option um maybe if they were permanently unstable they would at least be deemphasized like they wouldn't be in the very large header at the top of every um inscription but um yeah I don't know I I haven't really thought about that uh that like eventuality. um I will finally tag Trevor in Trevor uh go ahead. yeah I just wanted to um kind of push back against what Leo said uh I don't know it was like 30 minutes ago here but um you know I don't think you guys need to slow down I think for some things you need to slow down I think that what you actually need is some type of documentation or clarification or classification rather for different types of changes almost like t-shirt sizing or some type of like framework uh can be very simple in terms of like you know if something changed tomorrow that like we need to have a quick blockhead activation like a bug was introduced or something like that like I think that would be pretty important not to wait six months so you know I think there's needs to be different like kind of classifications of um the blockhead activation I think for like very trivial stuff I don't think it needs to be like six months and so I think it just comes down to like proposing a framework and getting feedback on it and then implementing it you can change it over time but just having like the clear communication and like iterating on it uh would be would be my take I think it would be a mistake to like I think it's completely arbitrary if you say like a month or you say six months I think you have to say like here are the three different types of things or five different types of things here are the some of the scenarios you know we update this classification every so often and I think that's fine like I think it would be kind of sad if it was like six months to get parent child or something like that after it was finished you know I mean once like universally approved and there may be things like that in the future like as you said like Bitcoin could change like there's no going to be case you mentioned like we can reduce ordinals down from two transactions to one transaction like that seems like low-hanging fruit uh that shouldn't be the same as like other changes yeah I see Elux hands been up but I'm gonna throw it to uh Paz and then zero to community creators um who I'm a huge fan of I love these folks uh Paz welcome to this stage hello guys thanks for having me on dope space I feel like as everyone's been talking more and as more time passes things have you know thankfully calm down a bit more I feel like a week ago things felt like a little bit hostile it was like an aus versus them kind of mentality um but yeah I think I think it's kind of like a lot better um if anyone cares for my opinion because I know Casey brought up like um you know people like not participating in discussion um I remember back in February this issue was brought up and I pretty much agreed with what SiPos and I think you were also talking about it as well Charlie um as to what you guys were saying and I still believe that um though I do empathize with those who may feel like they'll be affected by the change if this is something that can improve overall efficiency with the protocol I think it makes sense to go through with it um yeah kind of what Trevor asked or similar to what Trevor asked my question is what do you think the timeline looks like as to like when a decision could be made also is there like a tangible um I forgot the word but is there like a tangible like number or something that you could prove or estimation that you could give as to like how much more this could improve the the way you guys I guess build upon the protocol towards Casey I guess questions for Casey or Ralph I think it's really hard to come up with a sort of objective um number um it'd be great if there were sort of units of complexity and we could say how many units of complexity this would remove from protocol development but um I think that'd be hard it would it would make a lot of things in the index or a lot nicer um but um yeah it's hard to put a um a sort of a concrete you know number on that um yeah as far as like um the timeline for the decision being made I've never been in this position before where like I've you know you know we're I've been part of a conversation which is like large and it involves a community and is um you know contentious but um yeah definitely not planning to make a change soon I don't know what what the definition of uh soon is you know but I certainly wouldn't you know I certainly wouldn't like you know try to push through a change you know this month or even the next month um you know while the while the discussion is still ongoing for sure um and oh yeah it completely makes sense to like that you wouldn't have like a tangible number it's like a hard thing to like really measure but yeah I feel like it could definitely make people like understand more it's like if it feels like such a large you know like difference um and and yeah hopefully yeah and I'm I'm glad that you know it's it's gonna be a while until I guess a decision is made um feel like it'll be exciting I guess to talk about this more in Amsterdam um also I was gonna ask Casey are you going to answer them I wasn't sure I messaged you by the way do you just you just left me on red row with that bro I'm sorry my DMs are like fully riparony um as far as Amsterdam uh Aaron wants me to come to Amsterdam but I'm like I don't know you know another conference uh currently I'm thinking that I'm gonna skip Amsterdam but you know who knows she might she might convince me uh yeah shout out to uh inscribing Amsterdam which is a conference that Aaron is running I'm sure it's going to be uh awesome even if I'm not around Casey please go we could all get fucked up as a community it'll be fun please come through Casey do you gotta come Casey I think we have yeah the first consensus we really have I'm I'm just kidding uh I'm gonna throw it to zero and then probably back to E-Law and then actually let's do ashara after that because he DMed me oh yeah okay everyone thanks for having me up here so in February I do remember like past that we were saying numbers were really not something said in stone they weren't really meant to be at something that we were gonna keep and I think since it's a beta stage um for ordinals I really do think if it benefits the foundations of going forward I really think it's something we should change um why would we um keep something that might be harmful in the long run right so I think many voices have to be heard before a real consensus but as a creator I do really think that if it's gonna benefit the protocol and the growth of it I think a change even if it's painful might be necessary yeah thanks for that zero uh E-Law you want to go next? yeah so in the how money podcast you were talking about um we don't have as many contributors to the repos like you would want so like I've been trying to do PRs and I've been kind of like DaVinci coding like the repot to figure out like what standards you guys want to to go to so like early on you guys did uh um did like code pairs with like graph I kind of missed out on this so like can we kind of have like a way where we can like build up a group of developers that can like you know teach people or we have like feedback in the PRs like you know this code shit like make it out the better color because I noticed like you changed some of that on my last PR and some kind of like decoding that to figure out how to do them better next time but like how do we um you know make it so like the next group of deaths can like teach the other ones down the road yeah it's uh it's a super good question I uh sort of have the I don't know if it's uh if it's good etiquette but if I have a PR that's like almost ready to go and there's like small changes I usually just make those changes uh before merging it uh especially yeah just because it avoids a whole bunch of rounds of doc of like back and forth but I definitely should like call out those changes and just say like hey like I merged this before I did I made these changes um scaling up development is something that is like is it's very hard I yeah I I don't have a lot of really good ideas I think probably me and Raff doing um screen share sessions on discord where we work on a feature together and we share our screen and we talk about it just to sort of show how to get started with the code base uh I think that'd be a really great idea um I even though I have kind of a bunch of open source projects um I've never actually been able to scale any of them to a bunch of community contributors I think it's just really hard um I have a project called just which is a um which is a sort of make file clone if you're a programmer you should use just it's great uh GitHub.com slash kc slash just or just.systems I always fucking shield this thing it's just a uh program where you can write some commands in a file and then run them from the command line uh it's super useful and I bring this up not not only to chill it but because um it's been around for a long time I think it's been around for like seven or eight years at this point it has a ton of users and I'm still the only uh like lead maintainer uh I get some contributions but they tend to be small contributions uh larger contributions tend to need a lot of work before I can merge them and so it means that there isn't um somebody else who has um you know merge merge permissions on the repo even though I'd really like it I would love it if other people sort of um we're on that so yeah I just think scaling open source scaling open source software is hard uh but that's not an excuse right like me and Raf should be thinking about about how to do that um for sure another hard thing is that um me and Raf don't have a lot of time and one very challenging thing is that sometimes contributions uh take a lot of time to like get into the code base um and they take a lot of time off away from maintainers um doing doing other things that's just a huge and sort of ongoing challenge um but yeah it is definitely something that I know that we're not great at and definitely something that um I definitely want to get better at yeah I think uh really good first step is doing kind of maybe streaming our coding sessions like when we started coding on ord we would always like hang out in a public discord room and like people would sometimes just join and watch us um and we would just like code away and it helps very much because then you also kind of learn the way we discuss and the language we use and and how we think about problems and often a code base especially a complex code base like like ord um it's very Byzantine like there's many different files so just seeing like where we put tests what different kinds of tests we have how we approach kind of development um and also like our just our flow in the terminal um I think that always really helps um at least help me to really like turbocharge how how I develop and I think we I think that would be a cool thing to maybe start that again um just streaming uh streaming our coding sessions or some of them at least uh not all of them that's how I found you guys I mean that's how my dumbass was able to actually finally wrap my head around ordinal theory and all this stuff and I missed that guys I would love you know you guys figure out what venue works best for you but maybe we I think it'd be cool to resurrect the order cord sessions um just throwing it out there maybe we could run it back sometime back to the order cord where it all started um I know Asher wanted to say something Asher one of the slept on uh investors in the space thank you very much Charlie and thank you all for having this space it's honestly been just fantastic from my perspective I'll keep my comments super brief I just wanted to share that um I love this protocol a lot I love a lot of aspects of it I love the inscriptions I love the numbers um and I love the BRC 20s um the one part about this last week that that made me a little bit uncomfortable and that didn't feel great was that while it felt like this conversation was still happening and this space was sort of to come it was the next day um it didn't feel great that there was a change that was merged and especially a change that was related to the conversation that we're all having right now and I just guess I would ask moving forward um and I've recognized that the change did not do a lot of the things that people thought it did and it didn't do the things that people feared it did um but I still think the fact that it happened while the conversation was was still ongoing um I think it created some tension and the last thing I want to say is that I think Casey I think you you already addressed this today um and I think it I just want to say that I'm really grateful for your comments and I really appreciate them specifically about not pushing a major change for at least a month or two so thank you yeah I think there was some sort of unfortunate uh those those PRs part of the reason so that there are two PRs one PR which refactored inscription parsing which um uh didn't change any existing non-curse inscriptions but which recognized some cursive inscriptions and then the other one was raffles the other one uh was the sequence number just like the internal use of it oh yeah adding add an alternate and and all that stuff and yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah so uh I didn't really anticipate that those were going to be controversial um it kind of especially because both of those um changes uh actually make the argument to change inscription numbers weaker because um using sequence numbers internally it allows cleaning up a lot of the code without changing any of the um without changing any of the um uh external behavior than anybody cares about and so it means that some of the tech debt that inscription numbers have sort of created is removed and then it removes one argument for getting rid of them because the tech debt is partially removed and then the inscription number parsing that the inscription parsing refactor that actually gives us a little bit more confidence that inscription numbers can be kept stable in the future so that's also sort of like points on the um side of doing nothing but I am yeah I need to get used to the fact that uh people watch the GitHub and so um I think if I was going to do something differently I don't think that I would have delayed those PRs I think it's actually like I mean just I'm not going to delay good things that are uncontroversial for the protocol but I should have you know understood that there was a you know easy possibility that people might misinterpret these and like uh gotten out ahead of the news and just been like hey these PRs are being merged they look like they're scary but this is what they do and this is sort of the you know mostly the positive impact that they have on the discussion but yeah point well taken it's uh it's really crazy being a dev and having your repo like watch for PRs and issues the norm when you're a dev is you you do things on GitHub and nobody gives a shit absolutely nobody gives a shit uh your users don't even notice or give a shit until like months later when they come to like complain about it or whatever but there's been multiple times where we've made you know issues or PRs on the GitHub and then there's like Twitter's like alpha drop guys like new alpha dropped on the ordinal's GitHub so it's definitely an adjustment and I think you know we just need to get used to the fact that like if there's a good change that can be misperceived as being controversial maybe we just need to get out ahead of that and make sure that we're you know you know tweeting about it ahead of time or something like that I want to push back a little on the controversial things it's like there's no misinterpreting of it being controversial there's definitely a group of people that do think it was a controversial PR like I'm one of those people we're probably a minority uh but yeah fundamentally on that PR like just the series of events was creator of metapotocol puts out blog post stating if we're going to basically roll back one of these pieces of the protocol uh right the the inscription numbers will become unstable and they would basically change and then a week later in the midst of a a pretty intense discussion I would argue there wasn't consensus uh necessarily for that change um you know there's a PR that you know basically goes halfway and introduces the sequence of numbers the alternative sequence of numbers but just doesn't do the step of getting rid of the old sequence I think the framing that that has nothing to do with the original proposal um if it's true then I apologize but I think I do think it's very hard to make a convincing argument to me that that has nothing to do with the initial proposal like fundamentally it does have to have the job I mean yeah it has to do with initial proposal but it makes the initial proposal uh less tenable in that we can now keep inscription numbers because it is easier to maintain them so it like the case you already mentioned this like we introduced this to kind of come to a compromise or not even a compromise just to make it easier and and be backwards compatible and everything so um I definitely agree with how the time I looked it didn't look very good but this actually as as as you already mentioned makes it easier to maintain inscription numbers into the future yeah and I totally I completely understand that I think the the larger point here has nothing to do with the actual like topic even it's just that fundamentally there was a highly controversial you know blog post and then there was the PR a week later that absolutely had to do with that proposal you know and then it's being framed as having nothing to do with the proposal like it has nothing to do with the actual code I really do I understand like the logic behind sequence numbers um being helpful like we'll actually find it helpful on or dot iO like I do understand that aspect that's not like the pushback I think that like ashore or other people have on it it's simply that like some sort of predictability some sort of timeline some sort of ability to uh have discourse around these things um I think is really important and a week after the most contentious kind of proposal uh in all of ordinals I yeah I don't think that was the appropriate timing to do that and and I get that y'all perceive it differently like I honestly think like it's I'm a developer like it's very easy to have tunnel vision with the technical aspects but that's just not the lens that you know 99% of people that are participating in this protocol necessarily are viewing these through their non-technical uh in in many cases so I just wanted to push back that I don't I don't think the framing that you know it's mistakenly controversial like it is controversial to people who don't want to you know give an inch on the inscription number thing right like we very much care about the mutability and it's not it's not really a question that if you pull the space right now of what's about inscription it would be a little bit of a train rack because that's been degraded over the last you know nine days now I mean what is an inscription I don't I don't know I guess I just don't see it this way these are things that improve the code and I did I did understand the pushback on exposing sequence numbers to the user especially while this is you know an ongoing discussion but you know ultimately these were improvements to the code that like move things forward and and you know I I don't see I don't see not wanting improvements to the code that don't where where there can only be the perception that it's coming that it's that it's that it's coming down on one side of the debate or the other like if people have a sort of mistaken perception about what a change is going to be I think that you know you you have to address that in terms of you know explaining what the it's what what it does but I mean people have lots of people have lots of opinions lots of not necessarily so informed opinions and so I don't know it's it becomes impossible to like listen to all of them at all times yeah I think the Erin and I yeah I think communication helps right like I think a lot of this could be solved with just like an explainer for non-technical people about what's going on I do like we do have a hard stop at 310 here so I want to kind of wrap this up um Bhutoshi do you want to go in and then we can kind of do final thoughts from there yeah I got you what's up y'all what's up goats so I got two questions on the first question applies to every creator and ordinals who wants to do a big collection type of provenance so right now if I want to inscribe my full collection with parent child on specific sites I have to do it one at a time because we can only get one inscription done for blog so it'll take me around a month to be finished will these proposed changes allow us to speed up this process by allowing multiple inscriptions in a parent's file transaction yeah we're working on that that if you want to look on the good tab that's the offset spec I mean the offset basically allows you then to specify where the inscription will land in the outputs and this will allow you to put multiple inscriptions in the same input and then specifying sets that are foreign off a part and with that you can kind of batch inscribe inscriptions and then of course also batch inscribe your collection with a parent on top um I I'm actually working on that today um so yeah that's definitely a thing that I want to get in because that's the thing that actually makes collections usable because right now as you already said doing it sequentially is kind of doesn't really work for big collections so yeah a very question and just just to jump in to be clear that feature doesn't depend that's orthogonal to the whole inscription number thing that is you know is happening sort of on its own timeline it will be ready when it's ready regardless of the you know sort of the rest of the discussion here so for that pure just like a technical question will that also be able like if you have this one large UTXO will it like stage UTXO's in like the same transaction or do you have to like manually like get that ready so so there's two parts to this the first part is allowing it in the protocol and then the second part is building the wallet out for that so the protocol part is pretty easy but then building kind of the wallets that will create the right kinds of transactions is where most of the work is and the exact design of how that will be done if like all inscriptions land in the same output so in the same UTXO and then you split it out afterwards or all inscriptions like every inscription gets their own output that's kind of a question design question that's yeah when I get there we'll see what is easiest and then most straightforward but from a protocol perspective like anything like many things are possible um yeah we have a hard stop and I'm so sorry Trevor I don't think I'm gonna let I don't think I'm gonna let you uh speak your piece but we have lots of spaces I know a lot of people to hear do a lot of spaces um uh cypher informing he has to be able to raise his hand this whole time and I'm gonna get fired if side doesn't get like 80 seconds to talk and then we're gonna okay 60 seconds and then it's over let's say go for yeah let's let's let's let's give the last word to cypher closes out rapid fire bullet point list um in regards to inscription numbers being related to stability uh ordality or nally and raft probably get kick out of that considering 0.7 existed to fix a problem related to this uh so if code is law then that bug is law and we should definitely undo that and skip that inscription again uh as for predictability if I ask you the thousandth inscription that was placed in blocks that were confirmed on chain what's its inscription number if you can't tell me then it's not predictable in that regard and there's a billion other ways you can approach this predictability is the one after the inscription number a thousand a thousand and one or is it negative 54 there's a lack of predictability there and that lack of predictability is dangerous in a lot of ways for both the market and market participants who may be less misled about what they're holding um then scalability and open source on one hand yeah stasis uh ossification let's slow it down it's good call with 1.0 I think there might be a discussion to be had there that's meaningful I would also say that slowing down vital changes that improve the code without undermining anybody's ability to use the software would be a massive mistake in just a dereliction of duty as an open source maintainer um and then you asked earlier about how much time we need to sync with changes you made if we were going to make breaking changes and try to sync with UKZ it doesn't matter how much time you give us give us a week last for a month give us a month last for three give us three we'll ask for six because like you'll never be able to provide enough time and that's why you'll never be able to synchronize these like block hide activations like I'm being a realist that's how we are as developers we're evil um so I kind of to to sum all that up I think that accepting that there are other useful numbering systems that we should be using is vital but also you know if people have an attachment to this numbering system making it to where we can maintain that for them with sequence numbers is probably something that should be heavily considered all right thank you Si for Casey I'll let you do any final words you have uh probably would be helpful to just say like you know what can people expect from this issue and your response going forward from this oh man putting me on the spot I don't know no no sudden moves I guess is the is is what I would say um I've been really listening to everybody um and I very much respect the opinions of the people who on on both sides of the discussion I think it's been a surprisingly respectful discussion which is super cool um so yeah nothing uh nothing nothing to say there but uh yeah I hope people understand that uh it's it's it's not a really a dictatorship uh because ultimately users can decide what code that they want to run and I definitely try to keep that in mind right like I can have my ideas about what's good for the protocol but ultimately it's sort of the users who are going to make the final decision and that that needs to be respected so yeah uh no uh nothing nothing too deep uh thanks so much everybody for uh coming and uh yeah maybe look forward to uh me and Raf uh uh doing some live coding sessions uh you can uh you can enjoy us uh fumble around the uh the or code base all right thanks everyone