Ordinals are new, following a taproot upgrade, and will be massive because now PoW blockchains can hold tokens and NFTs.
Bitcoin: Bitcoin is already a store of value but it will benefit from NFT ordinals. Unlike Ethereum NFTs that often just contain a link to a website displaying an image or other assets. Bitcoin ordinals actually hold the data of the NFT and due to the small size are retro looking.
DogeCoin: Dogecoin is a currency used for payments and due to its high inflation is not a great store of value. Ordinal tokens will be masive for Dogecoin because now you can store value on the blockchain. Take the ordinal token Dogi for example, there are only 21 million of them with zero inflation. Dogi can be used to store value similar to Bitcoin but within the Doge blockchain.
Grin: Grin is a currency, perfect for private peer to peer payments but not so perfect for storing value. Wouldnât it be amazing if we could have grin ordinal tokens, store of value that is private?! I understand ordinal inscriptions probably wont work with Grin due to its ethereal nature. Is there anyway to make it happen?
I hope it never happens. I see no value in putting the whole data on the chain (hurts storage and therefore decentralization imo), itâs much better if only contentâs link/hash are there. Also a single chain shouldnât be there to enable you to do everything, it should do one thing and be good at it. So ordinals on btc are a bad thing, enabling smart contracts on btc would be another bad thing in my eyes.
Beam.mw supports confidential assets according to their website though I cant understand how it works.
Fair enough, many oppose ordinals on BTC, ie the spam concept. BTC is already a store of value anyway. But it looks like it might work on Dogecoin. I can see dogecoin millionaires wanting to move their currency into ordinal tokens as a store of value. This would free up the doge supply providing more liquidity and better price stability.
I guess my question is can we have private assets? Could it be a second MW blockchain sister to Grin that has a maximum supply that people can use for private assets. Or could it be something else entirelyâŚ
Purists have vision of ă as something minimal, efficient, safe, fair and written in exotic programming language that very few people know and takes enormous resources and technical knowledge just to compile and run.
I respect that vision and I myself agree with almost integrity of it. It is a community project and everyone is entitled to see it in their own way. That is the beauty of it, not belonging to anyone but to everyone.
At same time, assets, tokens, smart contracts, running stuff in the browser in shitty javascript etc⌠These things are present in other successful cryptocurrencies and these are things many people want and need. Getting them in ă is extra hard because of its minimalistic design, but with some compromises are at least partially achievable.
I think they use different generator points. If you would want to create a token on ă you would need to pick your generator point. What is harder is implementing logic that controls its emission etc.
If i had to guess rust has been picked because of its strong compiler assurances (haskell would imo be even stronger, but they didnât go that far), so imo thatâs not something that should be criticized.
I donât like âsuccessâ as a metric (i get why itâs used) because success is (in almost every case imo) gained by bringing people (with lack of knowledge on that field) over by abusing human brains through marketing. There are very few cases where success is a result of projectâs usefulness (i would put btc in that category). Now i agree that some of these things are needed (eg. nfts are useful for some things) but the reality is that if projectâs focus is being good at smart contracts then grin just canât compete with it (same as how that project canât compete with grinâs fairness). So in the end i think multiple projects will succeed and each of them will solve a different problem.
Iâll give you an analogy. A multitool is a good thing when you need to perform various small tasks. But it is not suitable for serious tasks.
A cook will not cook food in the kitchen with a knife in a multi-tool, just like a hairdresser will not cut with scissors from a multitool.
Itâs the same with GRIN.
His strength is in his simplicity, we must not take away his strength.