Just four months after the release of the protocol, Orr entered into the first controversial debate over the so-called “cursed” inscriptions.
The simplest definition of a cursed inscription is any inscription that is not currently indexed and identified by ord. The term came about as a catchphrase when some people incorrectly used or intentionally misused opcodes to create engravings that could not be indexed by the ord and would therefore not be recognized nor given an engraving number.
This issue was first mentioned on April 25 in the Word GitHub A temporary fix proposed by then-lead developer Casey Rodarmor was to “tweak the system to recognize currently invalid patterns above, including retroactively in old blocks, but consider these new ‘damn’ patterns and assign them negative pattern numbers”.
Funnily enough, the example of the inscription symbol on the Ordinals docs site would be a cursed inscription.
There are many ways in which cursed inscriptions can be created. Any pattern with multiple inputs/outputs is damned. As explained above, some misuse of opcodes such as OP_1 can lead to curse inscriptions. Alternatively, entering OP_66 with a value of “damned” intentionally made these kinds of patterns by having an even numbered opcode not indexed by ord. Unless already specified in the specification, numbered opcodes are not recognized because they are reserved for future protocol development. The complete list of ways to create cursed inscriptions from Issue No. 2045 As follows:
- Multiple patterns per transaction, for efficient aggregation.
- Inscriptions on entries after the first, useful for groups.
- Multiple inscriptions on the same Sabbath, so that you don’t need to check the full session history to determine if the new inscription is valid.
- Unrecognized even-headed patterns, so that new even-headers don’t cause upgraded clients to disagree about pattern numbers.
There are specific debates about the cursed inscriptions. One controversy comes from how these inscriptions are currently numbered. Cursed inscriptions are negatively numbered in the order of their creation. Because of this numbering system and naming convention, some people have intentionally chosen to create inscriptions and combinations that look “damned” either by flipping the image of a positively numbered inscription or by using a more sinister image attribute when writing. The question is: should it be appended to the index of the positive numbered type, or does it keep its negative type number when the code is updated?
Additionally, another contentious conversation is what to do about a certain type of cursed inscription that you used OP_66 code to create. Since this opcode is not recognized by the ord and even numbered opcodes are intentionally left for use in future development, it is possible if engravings using this opcode are included in the cursed set or whether they should be rejected.
At present, the An issue about an even number opcode Included in oder github. There are several comments in support of including these etchings in the index, but the main maintainers of the protocol seem to oppose it. As of now, the developers’ current position is that these engravings will be unlinked, meaning they will not be assigned to a specific satoshi.
Remember, the ordinal theory works on a FIFO system for satoshis. Each vignette is allocated to the first satoshi in the genesis transaction when the vignette is created. This type of lens allows bitcoin research to track and transmit images, files, text, etc. If the cursed inscription is unblocked, it will not be associated with a specific Satoshi, and therefore it will not be possible to transfer it to another address. Many people who sign up hope that they will be able to sell or transfer their engraving to someone else. While inscriptions using this opcode will live forever on the Bitcoin blockchain, if these inscriptions are marked as unbound and not assigned to a specific Satoshi, users who minted cursed inscriptions using this opcode will not be able to sell or transfer them.
Herein lies one of the biggest concerns for people who spend money on transaction fees to create cursed graphs. If they can’t sell it in the future, big money will be wasted on fees. Several users have responded to the github issue, expressing support for including these inscriptions, but the code maintainers would rather not recognize the cursed inscription with the even-numbered OP_66 opcode.
On May 30, the ord’s new lead moderator, Raphjaph, booksAs the protocol is currently in place, inscriptions are invalid if they use an unrecognized even sign, so this change is really making a concession by recognizing them. Right now they are unrestricted but we might revisit this and obligate them in the future if they are There are strong reasons.”
This response was not what many writers had hoped to hear. Similar to Bitcoin, ord is open source software so users can fork the code if they want to learn about these specific types of ord. This contentious debate continues and the way forward remains clear. Users who have spent too much on transaction fees may be willing to switch to a newer version of the system that recognizes their cursed pattern, but that is only a theoretical path forward at this time.
Regardless, Ordinals is a new technology that is being built on top of Bitcoin. Whether the patterns flicker in the pan or if they have lasting power may depend on how you solve this problem.