ART ON BITCOIN: Ordinals and Stamps

After presenting Counterparty’s ecosystem, it is now time to explore two projects that have further contributed to revolutionizing art on Bitcoin: Ordinals and Stamps. But before delving into their significance, we need to take a step back and clarify, once again, how Bitcoin transactions work. Without this foundation, understanding how these new digital artifacts function would be impossible.

As we all know, Bitcoin is often described as digital gold, a decentralized system that allows people to transfer value securely without intermediaries. But unlike traditional banking systems, which maintain account balances in a centralized database, Bitcoin operates through an entirely different model: the Unspent Transaction Output (UTXO) system. This is what defines how transactions are structured and, ultimately, what makes Ordinals and Stamps possible.

Rather than adjusting a balance when sending funds, Bitcoin transactions consume and create UTXOs, which are individual, discrete portions of Bitcoin that must be spent entirely in each transaction. In a way, Bitcoin functions more like physical cash than a traditional bank account. If you have a €50 bill and need to pay €30, you cannot simply tear the bill in half. Instead, you hand over the full €50, and the cashier gives you €20 in change. Bitcoin transactions follow the same principle: an entire UTXO is spent, and if there is excess, the remaining value is returned to the sender as a newly created UTXO. Every transaction consists of inputs (the UTXOs being spent), outputs (the new UTXOs created), and metadata, which includes transaction signatures and, in some cases, additional embedded data.

This brings us to an important technical shift that made digital inscriptions on Bitcoin possible. Before 2017, Bitcoin transactions not only contained UTXO data but also signature data, cryptographic proofs verifying that the transaction was valid. However, signature data occupied valuable space, restricting the number of transactions that could fit within Bitcoin’s strict 1MB block size. Segregated Witness, commonly known as SegWit, introduced a fundamental change: it moved the signature (witness) data outside of the main transaction structure, into a separate section known as witness data. This made transactions more efficient, freeing up space, reducing fees, and increasing Bitcoin’s overall capacity. More importantly, it made it possible to inscribe additional data onto Bitcoin’s blockchain, which, years later, led to the emergence of Ordinals.

Although Bitcoin was never designed for storing arbitrary data, developers have continuously found ways to embed information into transactions. Some of the earliest experiments relied on OP_RETURN, a field that allowed small amounts of data, enough for timestamps or token metadata but not enough for images, text, or larger digital artifacts. Ordinals and Stamps, however, take a more ambitious approach. Ordinals leverage witness data, using it as a space to inscribe digital content such as images, animations, and even small applications. Stamps, on the other hand, embed data directly into Bitcoin’s UTXO set, making them fundamentally different in terms of permanence and cost.

And this is where another big debate begins. 

Ordinals inscriptions live within witness data, which means they take advantage of SegWit’s efficiencies and do not interfere with Bitcoin’s fundamental transaction model. However, because witness data is not essential for Bitcoin’s core functionality, node operators can choose to prune it, deleting it to save disk space. This does not mean Ordinals disappear entirely, but it does introduce an element of uncertainty: if enough nodes decide to prune witness data, certain inscriptions may become inaccessible. That being said, Bitcoin’s ecosystem is currently structured in a way that makes widespread pruning unlikely. Many full nodes still store witness data, and archival services actively back up inscriptions, ensuring that Ordinals remain retrievable even if individual nodes discard them.

Stamps, by contrast, take a radically different approach. Instead of utilizing witness data, they embed inscriptions directly into Bitcoin’s UTXO set. Because every node must maintain a full record of all unspent transaction outputs for the network to function, Stamps are truly immutable. They cannot be pruned, deleted, or removed without breaking Bitcoin’s transaction model. This permanence comes at a price—quite literally. Since UTXOs are fundamental to Bitcoin’s operation, embedding data in them takes up more valuable block space, making Stamps significantly more expensive to create than Ordinals. They also contribute to UTXO bloat, increasing the size of Bitcoin’s state and making it more resource-intensive for nodes to operate over time.

Ordinals optimize for efficiency and flexibility, while Stamps prioritize absolute immutability, even at the cost of scalability. The contrast between these two approaches encapsulates one of the ongoing philosophical and technical tensions within Bitcoin’s emerging art scene: should digital artifacts on Bitcoin prioritize permanence above all else, or should they aim for a balance between practicality and decentralization?

At present, Ordinals have gained significantly more traction. Their relatively low cost and efficiency have encouraged adoption, and marketplaces dedicated to trading them have flourished. So far, no large-scale pruning events have taken place, meaning Ordinals remain accessible across the network. Stamps, meanwhile, have carved out a niche among collectors who see permanence as non-negotiable, even if it comes at the cost of efficiency. Some view them as a conceptual counterpoint to Ordinals, an alternative that reinforces the idea that Bitcoin inscriptions should be permanent, no matter the computational burden they impose.

What is undeniable is that both Ordinals and Stamps have pushed Bitcoin’s artistic potential far beyond what was previously imagined. No longer just a system for financial transactions, Bitcoin is now a medium for cultural inscription, a ledger that is as much about art as it is about money. Whether the future of Bitcoin-based art leans toward the efficiency of Ordinals or the permanence of Stamps remains to be seen, but the fact that such discussions are happening at all marks a fundamental shift in how Bitcoin is perceived. It is no longer just a network for value transfer; it is becoming a platform for cultural permanence.

A few days ago, I discussed Bitcoin art with a friend and pioneer artist, Gordon Berger. I discovered that he recorded a series of educational videos in which he discusses not only what Ordinals are but also what you can do with them and why they are so precious: Parent Child provenance, On-chain Libraries, Recursion examples, Blocktime and Recursive Endpoints, and Dynamic On-chain art. I strongly encourage you to access the videos here. They are free; you just need to sign up. 

Gordon also leads The RuneArt project, which just introduced "TIMESTAMPS," a collaborative art collection combining the Runes and Ordinals protocols. Featuring contributions from six artists, each providing ten works divided into 100 ArtNodes, this collection leverages Bitcoin's capabilities to create dynamic, fine digital art. Read about the collection here. And if you are wondering what Runes are, you will also find an educational video about them in the link above. In the meantime, Runes is a new fungible token protocol designed for Bitcoin, created by Casey Rodarmor, the developer of Bitcoin Ordinals. It introduces a way to create and manage fungible tokens (like ERC-20 on Ethereum) directly on the Bitcoin blockchain, leveraging the UTXO model rather than relying on off-chain data or additional layers like BRC-20.

Another article not to be missed is Breaking Protocol—The Ordinals Protocol is a Work of Art, by Outland’s editor-in-chief Brian Droitcour. In it, he explains how “the protocol was developed by an artist (Casey Rodarmor) for use by other artists. It is maintained through the collective creation of art and value. It augments Bitcoin by creating a new use for it. And it’s a mimicry of Bitcoin, a parasitic twin that sharpens people’s understanding of what the blockchain is and is for.”

I also just found a pearl, Bitcoin Graffiti article by Kevin Buist, where he talks about something extraordinary, that made me remember why I am here: pre-Ordinal inscriptions on Bitcoin and the fact that “Compared to the elaborate creations that are possible using Ethereum and other more versatile blockchains, the pre-Ordinals inscriptions on the Bitcoin blockchain can seem mundane. Their romance, however, lies in their continuation of graffiti in the most ancient sense of the word: mark-making where mark-making is not normally permitted or anticipated. This kind of creative misuse is particularly hard to carry out in digital spaces, because everything on a computer is a program or an app or a function. … The creative misuse of the Bitcoin blockchain is a rare example of making a mark in spite of the purpose of a program, rather than in service to it. … Bitcoin inscriptions—and, later, Ordinals—are a testament to the persistent human desire to leave lasting marks wherever we are. Inscriptions are also proof that nothing can ever maintain a single purpose. Bitcoin wasn’t designed to be versatile, but users (including its creator) made it versatile.” 

In January 2024, Sotheby’s hosted an Ordinals curated sale, presenting artists like Ana Maria Caballero, who inscribed a poem on the Bitcoin blockchain. 

And on 10 October 2024, Christie’s London auctioned Ascend, a groundbreaking digital work created by Ryan Koopmans and Alice Wexell for £44,100 against an estimate of £30,000-£50,000. This marked the first time a piece inscribed on Bitcoin’s Ordinals protocol had been sold in a live auction at Christie’s. The Art Newspaper article here. 

Now, seeing Bitcoin art reach the biggest auction houses of all time is both very depressing and really exciting. One thing is sure: once it gets there, it means the influence of these projects did manifest, at least in the art market.

But I hope that with this article I was able to convey not only the importance of the monetary value that these protocols are moving, but especially their irreversible historical and cultural importance.

As for Stamps, if you’d like to explore some art existing on this protocol, you should visit stampchain marketplace, which offers a comprehensive platform for creating, collecting, and trading Bitcoin Stamps. The platform also features a directory of recent sales and popular stamps, allowing users to discover trending artworks.