yes, I agree, its a "ordinals theory".. based on Shelling point of social consensus (more like a shilling point..), not cryptography. If nothing is enforcing the rules the rules dont exist, if one indexer can serve different data then other that is a protocol problem called lack of consensus.. it also says that running the same code "should" give the same results.. this is covering software bugs, misconfiguration (eg. one is using btc node 0.29.0 and other 0.30.1 or different ord version that inevitably leads to lack of agreement on what is truth...) or malicious data tampering in order to steal or scam........ another problem is when next version deployed rewrites history (changes records that were already indexed in a certain way by previous version..) this is something that cannot happen if you are using proofs and not TRUSTMEBRO approach. solution is easy, just submit every block a hash of the state of ordinals database.. you have an anchor point you can actually verify cryptographically.. because every indexer would need to submit same hash if honest.... this is not happening any time soon (nor later IMO...) I like the inscription technology, the storage approach is implemented well and im using it in general to store data on btc, but I cant with clear consciousness use the ownership model, understanding the technical background. I took the first chance to serve at least partially verified ordinals and I ren the first verified ordinals content oracle vco.fakefull.art/docs/, that verifies that the data served by ORD is actually the data on chain, there is no such a check in the ORD by now.. shoutout to @__proper for his works on cryptography and making ordinals.. some of us learned some shit about cryptography from all the CPU mined coins back then, when we believed the next algo mined will change the world...