Bitcoin was not designed with NFTs in mind, but a protocol called Ordinals found a way to create them anyway, using nothing but Bitcoin’s existing base layer. Understanding how it works explains both why it caught on quickly and why a meaningful part of the Bitcoin community is unhappy about it.
Ordinal theory: numbering the smallest unit
Every bitcoin is divisible into 100 million satoshis, and until Ordinals, individual satoshis were fungible, completely interchangeable with each other, with no way to distinguish one from another. Ordinal theory assigns every satoshi ever mined a permanent serial number, based strictly on the order it was mined and the order it moves through transactions. This does not change Bitcoin’s code or consensus rules at all. It is purely an indexing scheme, a way of tracking which specific satoshi is which as coins move, layered entirely on top of data that was already public.
Inscriptions: attaching data to a specific satoshi
An inscription takes that numbering scheme a step further by attaching arbitrary data, an image, text, or even a small piece of software, directly to a single numbered satoshi, using Bitcoin’s witness data field (the same space used for signature data since the SegWit and Taproot upgrades). Once inscribed, that data is permanently and immutably part of the Bitcoin blockchain, stored the same way any other transaction data is stored, replicated across every full node. The specific satoshi carrying that inscription can then be tracked, transferred, and traded like a unique collectible, which is functionally very similar to what an NFT does on other chains, just implemented natively on Bitcoin rather than through a separate smart contract.
Why this is controversial
The objection is not really about art or collectibles. It is about block space. Bitcoin’s block size is fixed, and inscriptions, especially larger ones like images, can be substantially heavier than a typical financial transaction. When inscription activity surges, it competes directly with ordinary payment transactions for the same limited space, which pushes fees up for everyone. Critics argue this distorts Bitcoin’s fee market and clutters the blockchain with data unrelated to its purpose as a monetary network. Supporters counter that Bitcoin’s block space is a public resource with no rule against non-financial use, that higher fee revenue is good for long-term miner incentives and network security as the block subsidy shrinks, and that the debate mirrors earlier, ultimately settled disagreements about what Bitcoin “should” be used for.
The fee-market connection
What it means for onchain analysts
Ordinals changed the texture of Bitcoin’s data, and that is worth understanding even if you have no interest in owning one. Inscription waves produce bursts of transactions that are large in byte size but small in transferred value, which distorts any metric built on transaction counts or average transaction size. Fee spikes driven by inscriptions look, on a chart, much like fee spikes driven by monetary demand, and they are not the same thing at all.
The practical adjustment is to check what is behind a fee or activity spike before drawing conclusions from it. Metrics that key off economic value transferred hold up better during these periods than metrics that key off raw transaction volume. It is also a reminder that miner revenue has two components. The Puell Multiple reads differently in a period where a meaningful slice of revenue comes from data inscriptions rather than payments, and the same applies to any framework that assumes fee income tracks monetary usage.
The dust question
Because inscriptions attach data to individual satoshis, they create outputs that holders have a reason not to spend, which quietly adds to the set of coins that behave as though they were locked. In aggregate the amounts are small relative to the supply, but they are one more example of the general point: supply side metrics measure economic behaviour, and new uses of the chain create new behaviour that the older versions of those metrics were never designed to capture.
Whichever side of the debate a reader lands on, the practical effect is measurable: inscription activity has produced some of the sharpest short-term fee spikes in Bitcoin’s recent history, periods where average fees briefly rivaled or exceeded typical transaction fees during major bull-market congestion. For the full mechanics of how Bitcoin’s fee market actually functions and why block space scarcity translates directly into fee pressure, see Bitcoin Transaction Fees and the Fee Market Explained. It is also worth tracking alongside Bitcoin Exchange Reserves Explained, since periods of high non-financial block usage can temporarily depress simple transaction-count metrics even while genuine economic activity, and exchange flows, continue unaffected underneath.
Common questions
Did Ordinals require a change to Bitcoin? No. Ordinal theory is a convention applied on top of existing rules, and inscriptions use data storage capacity that already existed after earlier upgrades.
Can inscriptions be removed? Not without changing consensus rules. Individual services can refuse to display them, but the data itself sits in the chain like any other transaction data.
Do they threaten Bitcoin’s use as money? That is the actual disagreement. Critics point to block space competition and higher fees for ordinary payments, supporters point to a fee market that has to grow anyway as the block subsidy shrinks.
Leave a Reply