Once upon a time, someone exploited a bug and got 184 billion bitcoins.

The VALID TRANSACTIONS were rugged by Satoshi to keep bitcoin going.

Today, another exploit (that Core refuses to acknowledge or fix) is damaging Bitcoin.

Similarly to the previous bug fix, where a malicious exploiter was rugged, should "valid transaction" be a reason to not fix Bitcoin?

It requires consensus that fixing a life threatening bug overrides immutability.

It's uncomfortable to talk about, but if you think about it, OF COURSE the survival of Bitcoin logically supercedes immutability.

And so, the debate should be about if this is really going to destroy Bitcoin if left unchecked. That conversation is being drowned out by appealing to less important principles of money.

I think we should first determine that, then encourage discussions about how to fix it, always remembering that the highest principle is Bitcoin surviving as digital sound money for the world.

It's OK to entertain an idea, like rugging malicious spammers, perhaps deciding against it, or not, or finding an alternative.

It was easier to fix when Satoshi was in charge and Bitcoin wasn't decentralised, now we all have to decide, all while the enemy is sending bots, and Adam Back, to muddy the waters and distract us from the most important conversations.