Long Push: Two Solutions for the Cursed Glyph Cursed

Note: This article is from @0xjingle Twitter, and MarsBit organizes it as follows:

The cursed glyph cursed comes from a numbered bug update. In Proposition 2045, Ordinals founder Casey proposed the concept of "cursed" inscriptions:

Modify ord to recognize the currently invalid inscriptions above, including backtracking on inscriptions in old blocks but treating these new inscriptions as "cursed" and assigning them negative inscription numbers. Since they will not receive positive inscription numbers, they will not destroy existing inscription numbers.

Today people err on purpose to cast wrong cursed inscriptions.

https://looksordinal.com is the first to provide a tool for casting cursed inscriptions, tick Cursed Inscriptions behind the elf to cast. It should be noted that the current mainstream market is still unrecognizable, please keep it properly after casting.

https://twitter.com/0xjingle/status/1645601898274373635

To query inscriptions use http://cursedordinals.com

There is a feeling of darkenergy. When blessed meets cursed, will there be an "annihilation" effect?

Regarding the No. 2000 bug currently appearing in the Oridinal protocol, which @OrdinalsCN do you support more

After a Bug2000 was discovered in the ordinals protocol, about 1,200 supposedly valid glyphs were not included. The first of these "orphan" inscriptions occurs before inscription number 420,285. The bug is caused by the ordinal protocol only counting the inscription in the first input of the transaction. So far, about 1,200 inscriptions are not in the first input of the transaction. This begs the question, what should be done about this "bug"? From everyone I've talked to, everyone seems to agree that we need to upgrade the protocol to count inscriptions made on every input of a transaction so we can do cool things with PSBT or inscriptions in a single transaction Multiple inscriptions. At issue is what should be done with orphan inscriptions and the numbering of existing inscriptions after 420,285. Here are the two most discussed solutions:

Solution 1: Retroactively change the inscription number

Choose a block height to upgrade the ordinal protocol, which will retroactively index/contain about 1,200 orphaned inscriptions. This will move the amount of each glyph between 420,285 and implementing this upgrade. This feels like the "pure" solution, as it means that the ordinal protocol will correctly match the logical order on-chain.

Solution 2: Don't change the inscription number

Choose a block height to upgrade the ordinals protocol, which will change future indexing rules so that future inscriptions not made in the first input of a transaction will be correctly assigned an inscription number. This will not change any existing inscription numbers, so the ~1,200 orphans will not be formally assigned inscription numbers in the protocol. Whether they are considered "typos" is up to the market.

This decision is somewhat important for several reasons:

1. It sets a precedent for whether we consider protocol indexers or blockchains to be the official state of inscription numbering.

2. Either way, people who think they are following the rules of the protocol and have done nothing wrong will be negatively affected.

3. It sets the tone and culture for the ordinals ecosystem. Are we able to respect each other while hearing opinions we disagree with? Will we be able to reach consensus and execute effectively, or will this problem only worsen and grow bigger the longer we go without action?