Thanks for the BSV context, I remember this now.

The BSV case actually proves my point. When the 100KB limit led to CSAM being uploaded, the solution was services like Money Button and BitcoinFiles blacklisting content at the application layer. They updated Terms of Service and moderated their platforms. The blockchain itself remained neutral while services filtered. That’s exactly what I’m advocating, individual operators making their own choices without protocol level censorship.

Satoshi said messages should not be recorded in the blockchain as a design principle. I agree with the intent. But there’s a difference between what Bitcoin should be used for versus hardcoding enforcement of that through filtering. Satoshi built structural constraints like block size limits, not content filters requiring ongoing human judgment about transaction intent.

The fundamental question remains, does Bitcoin survive through protocol neutrality plus responsible application layer filtering, or through coordinated protocol level censorship? BSV handled it without changing the base protocol. That’s evidence the permissionless layer can work while services act responsibly.