The core of the argument revolves around the process and legitimacy of how ordinals were designed and introduced to the community.

Kostas points out that typically, a BIP undergoes discussion where the community can propose tweaks and improvements. However, in the case of ordinals, the design and implementation were completed without prior consultation with the wider community that usually participates in such discussions. This raises questions about why the creators are now seeking a BIP designation.

Four specific reasons are outlined for possibly wanting a BIP: legitimacy, openness to design modifications, standardization, or some other reason not disclosed. Kostas argues that if legitimacy is not a concern for the creators, then there is no need for a BIP since ordinals are already live. If the purpose is to seek legitimacy or acceptance, then the creators should be open to potential design changes suggested by the community. Standardization as a reason for a BIP is seen as unnecessary since similar protocols can be developed in a permissionless fashion anyway.

The email also touches on the concept of uniqueness within blockchain protocols, pointing out that NFTs can enforce uniqueness only within the scope of a specific contract, and that different contracts might create identical NFTs. Uniqueness, according to Kostas, is primarily driven by the reputation and legitimacy of the issuer rather than the technical enforcement of a protocol.

In conclusion, while Kostas expresses a willingness to accept the proposal had it been submitted for discussion earlier, the lack of initial community involvement leads to skepticism about the necessity of a BIP at this stage. The embedded Twitter link presumably offers additional insights or relevant information from Kostas' point of view on the subject.

For more information or to follow Kostas's perspectives on the matter, you can visit the provided Twitter link: Kostas's Twitter.