<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><title>SatsAndSports wrote</title><author_name>SatsAndSports (npub1zt…wxm56)</author_name><author_url>https://yabu.me/npub1zthq85gksjsjthv8h6rec2qeqs2mu0emrm9xknkhgw7hfl7csrnq6wxm56</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://yabu.me</provider_url><html> &gt; Core devs would have tried to somehow contain the effects of ordinals&#xA;&#xA;Be practical. What do you mean here?&#xA;&#xA;Do you mean a fork should have been rushed out to make ordinals non-consensus-valid? If yes, how do you define an &#39;ordinal&#39;? For the most part, those transactions looked like normal (Taproot) transactions.&#xA;&#xA;In fact, the &#39;epic ordinals&#39; are simply the first satoshi mined after each halving.&#xA;&#xA;In order to filter out the epic ordinals, *you would have to filter out the coinbase transaction after each halving*!&#xA;&#xA;If you research ordinals, you&#39;ll realise there was no quick fix. And even if there was, it&#39;s not responsible to rush out a node upgrade every week to try to squash the latest silly hack. It was somewhat obvious that ordinals (and NFTs and so on) were just fads&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Core devs would have tried to somehow contain the effects of ordinals. Since this didn&#39;t happen, I can only conclude ....&#xA;&#xA;It *could* be an evil Core-munist conspiracy. Or it could be that the topic of Ordinals requires more subtle thought ...&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;(Epic ordinals, and other ordinal stuff, are discussed in detail here: https://www.nervos.org/knowledge-base/guide_to_inscriptions)</html></oembed>