#美联储回购协议计划 December 25th, renowned strategist Michael Saylor discussed the controversial topic of Bitcoin Ordinals in a crypto-themed interview show.



Saylor's stance is very clear: ordinals are indeed a polarizing issue, but he emphasizes that the true competitiveness of this chain lies in the stability of the Bitcoin protocol itself. He supports users having the freedom to operate on the Bitcoin network, including applications like inscribing ordinals — but with a major premise: the underlying protocol must never be modified or new features added just for these functionalities.

In other words, Saylor neither supports censoring ordinals nor advocates protocol upgrades to accommodate them. His core logic is: $BTC 's fundamental value lies in its integrity and security as a monetary medium, not in pursuing flashy features.

In his view, the market should decide what is valuable and what isn't. Good ideas will naturally prevail, bad ones will be eliminated without human intervention. The Bitcoin network should be inclusive enough to accommodate major players like government agencies, while also leaving room for individual investors. This balanced ecological approach may be more worth considering than simply stacking features.
BTC1.52%
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 7
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
CryptoMotivatorvip
· 20m ago
Saylor is still sticking to the same logic: BTC should just quietly make money, no need to mess around. As for inscriptions, go ahead and engrave them as you like, but don't touch the underlying code. I respect that attitude.
View OriginalReply0
HashRateHermitvip
· 4h ago
Saylor's take sounds good, but can it really hold up? Bitcoin has already torn apart over inscriptions.
View OriginalReply0
RugpullSurvivorvip
· 4h ago
Saylor's logic is still the same old story, stability comes first... but the problem is the market never thinks that way, right?
View OriginalReply0
SchroedingerMinervip
· 4h ago
Saylor's logic is actually about safeguarding the core of Bitcoin and not modifying the protocol for fancy tricks like inscriptions. I think he's quite right; piling on features can make the chain more complicated, and stability is the key.
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-e87b21eevip
· 4h ago
Saylor's logic is actually the same as Bitcoin extremism—prioritizing purity over feature stacking. It sounds reasonable, but in reality, should various Layers be limited in what they can do with the main BTC? It feels a bit excessive.
View OriginalReply0
ZenChainWalkervip
· 4h ago
I agree with Saylor's logic. BTC should stay true to its core essence and not be swayed by flashy distractions. The market will淘汰 garbage ideas without the need for manual review.
View OriginalReply0
MEVHunterXvip
· 4h ago
Saylor's words still carry some weight; protocol stability > flashy features, and this priority is indeed correct.
View OriginalReply0
Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
English
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)