-
@ The Nostr Report
2023-04-16 21:52:12
I was sent a link to a Twitter Space last night where David Bailey, Bitcoin Magazine CEO, was on stage discussing their magazine cover ordinal/NFT auction. I tuned in for over an hour, hoping to get better insight into their decision; I left disappointed.
I am not disappointed in #Bitcoin, the permissionless network. No, I am grateful that bitcoin allows others to use it in ways I disagree with because it also affords me that same freedom. I am disappointed in the leadership of a large global brand that calls itself Bitcoin Magazine. More on that in a moment, but first, let me share a bird's eye view of how I feel about inscriptions.
Unless and until enough people are willing to change something in the rules of the bitcoin protocol (not something I’m advocating for/against here), then people will use the bitcoin blockchain in any way those rules allow.
Block space is block space in that regard — it holds data, and it is and should be neutral at the protocol layer as long as it doesn’t violate consensus rules. But block space doesn’t and never will exist neutrally at the social layer, and responsibility for what that data is and how it is used falls on whoever put it there or is using it. I appreciated one speaker making a similar point during the space. He used the extreme example of CP as data that “can” be stored on the blockchain but socially and morally should not be.
In the case of using inscriptions to make NFTs on the blockchain, people will do what they will do, and that’s where my disappointment arises with Bitcoin Magazine. Their leadership chose to engage in promoting the scam that digital copies of an image can be scarce. (If you disagree with me on that being a scam, then I am sorry for your ignorance. Kindly go pound sand.)
Bailey insisted that their auction was done in as fair and non-scammy a manner as they knew how, but the problem is that no matter how fair the process may be, when the thing being sold is itself a scam, a non-scarce valueless shitcoin, then the whole process becomes a scam. There is no moral way to scam someone.
For anyone curious, here is one of the “scarce” digital images Bitcoin Magazine auctioned off (https://ordinals.bitcoinmagazine.com/content/79311cc42ced5c20d6fae28c3f6e4022b1040e297ad4b1829f0690a499cb3306i0) claiming that the inscription identified here (https://ordinals.bitcoinmagazine.com/inscription/79311cc42ced5c20d6fae28c3f6e4022b1040e297ad4b1829f0690a499cb3306i0) proves ownership of it.
I believe that is the crux of the disagreement between Bitcoin Magazine and many bitcoiners. I don’t think Bailey fully understands the significance of those two different viewpoints. He clearly thinks these digital copies of a magazine cover have value, or at the very least, he lacks the courage to say otherwise because of his paycheck. Either way, this decision puts the full weight of Bitcoin Magazine’s global brand in support of scammy behavior.
What you “can” and “should” do are not always the same. Bitcoin Magazine should not be doing this, even though they can. But unfortunately, after listening to that Space last night, I’m fairly certain Bailey’s response would be, “fuck you, we’re doing it anyway, and nobody can stop us.” And he’s right; nobody can stop Bitcoin Magazine, or me, from using #Bitcoin however we choose. But I CAN choose whether I support Bitcoin Magazine with my time, attention, and money. I will not be supporting them with any of those resources of mine as long as they continue to support and engage in scammy behavior.
by nostr:npub1lrnvvs6z78s9yjqxxr38uyqkmn34lsaxznnqgd877j4z2qej3j5s09qnw5