Although: @raw_avocado makes some nice points here:

I really don't have anything against Ordinals, but they should not get a BIP.

It has nothing to do with Bitcoin and they operate under an assumption that directly contradicts how Bitcoin actually works.

It introduces an external false assumption that can affect its fungibility.

There is no data structure for satoshis anywhere to be found, there are no sats anywhere to be found.
So there is nothing to be numbered/index.

There are just UTXOs and an amount value that corresponds.

If you have a transaction with multiple inputs/outputs it is impossible to claim sat 1,2,7 when to output 6,8,9.

This is not a metaphor or a meta description, it is how bitcoin works, we can take any TX on the blockchain deserialized and you will see this.

This is not a flaw of Bitcoin in any way, it's the best thing ever, since at a protocol level Bitcoin is intrinsically fungible.

However that is not true of UTXOs, they are very non-fungible, and why CoinJoins are necessary, but also because of the intrinsic fungibility of Bitcoin is why CJs work.

Ordinals are not an improvement to the protocol, the "I" from BIP stands for improvement, they add no benefit whatsoever in any way to the protocol, in fact it can be detrimental in some cases and again it can damage fungibility.

Even though we agreed on the technical aspect and how it works, if law enforcement decides that satoshis can be traced then they can use that against someone even though it is FACTUALLY INCORRECT.

Ofc getting a BIP does not change this, since if they exist and are popular this can happen anyway, however having a BIP increases the chance of being used in a court as an argument.

I think everyone should use Bitcoin however they want and if their TX is consensus valid and they paid the fee, well that's all that matters and it is crucial we keep it like this.

So I am not making an argument for them to not be used, I am just stating how Oridinals technically work and how Bitcoin Transactions technically work is in direct contradiction.