I guess I would argue that all voluntary action on bitcoin is legitimate use of the network until it becomes impossible to do because of the code. It's got to be a cooperative effort and a debate, and I think a distinction should be made between what **is** legitimate and what you think **should be** legitimate. Bitcoin does not have intentions. The people, separately, do, and express a part of their intentions by using contributing to, or augmenting, bitcoin. And bitcoin has no unified intent since it is not solely owned by anyone.
Discussion
If you believe that the code has reached a state of perfection I suppose. No more flaws. In 2010 the code allowed someone to create 184 million Bitcoin. That was not intended, but the code as it was at the time allowed it to happen. When the code permits things to happen that were not intended, it should be adjusted. People being able to stuff large amounts of non-financial data into a transaction was an unintended consequence of the Taproot update. Should we suddenly decide that there should be no more updates? I don't follow that logic. This is critical financial software. It's not a fucking game, and it's not a public graffiti wall. There is already not enough block space for financial data.
Yeah I'm not arguing that there should be no updates. That would go against my actual argument. The idea is that we don't own the network exclusively, so we have no way of deciding what should happen on it except by a consensus mechanism that everyone consents to as expressed by their use of the product. We don’t get to dictate what is legitimate. I don’t get to proclaim that ordinals are legitimate and therefore I am blocking updates from stopping them, nor do I get to proclaim they are illegitimate and therefore I am upgrading the software. Unless you actually are the person working on the software, and even then everyone else has to volunteer to switch to that version.
At least, that's the idea. This isn’t some well-formed thesis. I'm basing it on my best guess of the natural rights regarding blockchain, which I haven't given that much thought. And I'm attempting to provide an alternative perspective. I think it's best to see what works. However this goes. Ordinals are not violating anyone's rights, and stopping ordinals would not violate anyone's rights either so I don't give a shit.