The nostr:npub1qtvl2em0llpnnllffhat8zltugwwz97x79gfmxfz4qk52n6zpk3qq87dze team is no more “losing money” in not accepting bribes to include that which they (and other smart individuals like nostr:npub1xtscya34g58tk0z605fvr788k263gsu6cy9x0mhnm87echrgufzsevkk5s, nostr:npub1au23c73cpaq2whtazjf6cdrmvam6nkd4lg928nwmgl78374kn29sq9t53j, nostr:npub1ccsfkkfk46jsjtn80cup0vjn98slkheqd65t36tut822kddvdcxqxjdc57, etc) credibly assert to be #Bitcoin spam than a man would be “losing money” in refusing to pimp out his wife.
Discussion
How are these things similar
If you have strong principles, letting them go to ‘make more money’ leads you down a dark path
I’m curious what principles are being violated that apply to both situations. I don’t see it.
One of the objections to Ocean “censoring” transactions is that they aren’t acting in the economic interest of the miners by not maximizing profit. Economic interest is important (if miners can’t be profitable they won’t survive, as Steve Barbour has pointed out) but it’s not the only variable.
I get the sentiment but I don’t see the moral equivalency of pimping your wife and censoring inscriptions. It seems like the point you’re making is life isn’t all about profit maximizing. That there’s things worth protecting and not monetizing.
But the difference to me is marriage and pimping your bride is a matter of ethics, psychology snd physiology. Your relationship with your wife and her mental and physical well being is fragile and subjective. She is a conscious being that has good and bad days. If you treat her wrong and abuse her she will take off and leave you. You made vows to her that certainly conflict with pimping her.
Bitcoin is a system built on and dependent on game theory. Game theory is weakened when adding “human elements” and its predictability breaks down. It’s antifragile and gets stronger when attached. Its laws are objective and codefied. While an emergent system, it lacks consciousness. It takes no time off. It’s built on censorship resistance, so censoring goes against its constitution.
A lot of people who know more about bitcoin than me support Luke and I’m remaining curious but admittingly don’t see it at the most basic level, let alone comparing to pimping one’s wife.
I followed the first half of your comment here, about one’s wife, but you lost me on the second half.
Game theory is just that, theory. It is not set in stone. Human actors are variable in their actions/beliefs and so forth.
While the things you say about bitcoin are true in a sense, you leave out the fact that bitcoin relies on variable humans to run and maintain the code, to do the proof-of-work required to manufacture and purchase the miners, to create and build the systems that provide the energy to run the miners.
Even the protocol is code that, while the same at it’s core, has expanded vastly from the original.
I do not see @Ocean ‘s choices as censorship, as I see censorship being something imposed from up high that inflicts punishment on those who disobey.
As I see it, a mining pool choosing which transactions to include is simply one option out of many others. A mining pool is run by humans with opinions and their own beliefs, and they have as much right to create a block template that excludes transactions they deem spam, therefore potentially damaging to bitcoin, as another pool does to including these same transactions, as you do to start your own pool should you wish.
The principles of supporting/doing what is best for something you care deeply about and where you have a strong sense of what is best for said ‘thing’/system/person etc
I agree that miners are under no obligation to mint ordinals.
I agree that using #Bitcoin as an art gallery constitutes "spam".
I disagree that pool operators should be setting policy on behalf of miners.
I strongly disagree with backwards breaking changes to standard network protocol, like OP_RETURN, because there are valid usecases for that field. Whirlpool, decentralized identity proofs, and others yet concieved.
#Ordinals are going to run out of customers like every shitcoin. We don't need to break #Bitcoin nor compromise decentralization to help them fail.
Whirlpool is the one which doesn't support backward compatability, IMO.
What do you mean?
Whirlpool relies on 80 byte OP_RETURN which was standardized by #Bitcoin Core nearly a decade ago.
Even Adam Back says Luke made a mistake by breaking with the standard.
