🟧💭🤔#Bitmap Thoughts: Do Metaverses Have Ghettos? It's permissionless, the Bitmap. If you have a single transaction bitmap, inscribe your parcel. Inscribe 99 more. It's bitcoin. Inscribing 99 additional parcels to a single transaction bitmap can't be prevented, it's permissionless. It can just be called names. Wrong. Invalid. Barcel, perhaps. But you STILL HAVE 99 additional places to express yourself that could be accessed via your bitmap's numbering system through the application of Parent/Child relationships, and no one can take that away once you stuff it into a satoshi. Your parcel inscriptions are still on-chain, with provenance to the bitmap, whether it's "invalid" or not. Lean into this, I say. Just call the example of the 99 "invalid parcels", "ghetto" if you must call them anything other than "parcel," but still treat them as the destinations they are. We can call Bitmaps that don't have a ghetto, "pristine." We can rate Bitmaps based on their "pristineity" (pretty sure that should be a word because it's quite fun to say), the non-arbitrarily defined parcels are pristine, while the others are "ghetto." The more ghetto you have, the less pristine the Bitmap. See, this is going to happen at some point. It might as well just be recognized for what it is now, this "world" we're all building... It's permissionless. This is a digital frontier, where scarcity is measured in bytes, not imagination. Don't measure your imagination with scarcity that can't be applied, because your imagination is as it should be, immeasurable. But that numbering system ... the address system that Bitmap is... That's still valuable and usable and a pristine idea to encompass what it means to try and "build the metaverse" on bitcoin. In polite society, you need an address at which you can build. This has been...🟧💭🤔Bitmap Thoughts... 🤷