your hypothetical are comparing apples to oranges. you keep referencing malicious transactions that would break consensus rules we have in place today. what im talking about are transactions which stay within consensus rules but are for a use case that you don’t like (fwiw, that i don’t like it either).
go back to your original post and replace “bullshit jpegs” with “terrorist non-OFAC compliant” and see if your argument changes. it doesn’t.
None of my examples broke the consensus rules.
lol both of them did. but that’s not the point.
the point is your argument is that we should be making judgements about what is a legitimate use of bitcoin OUTSIDE of the rules of consensus, to make sure people are “using bitcoin in line with its intended purpose.”
i fundamentally disagree with that.
How does a difficult to compute script, or a means of creating a boatload of unspendable UTXOs break the consensus rules? What rule is broken by either hypothetical?
Second, yes we should be making that judgement as engineers, just as everyone who worked on it has always done, or the system literally could never have worked. It’s not a judgement of “which transactions should be allowed or which people should have access,” which is the principle you seem to *want* to apply, but doesn’t. It’s about what *kind of data* is allowed, which cannot be avoided.
Again, you seem to be sacrificing the extremely unambiguous concerns of security and design of an engineered, open protocol & network, for abstract libertarian principles that cannot apply unless the system works in the first place.
You are falsely equating the conversation with censorship or specific ideas or specific people, when that isn’t what it is, anymore than the blocksize is a “censorship” of all the people who want to use Bitcoin but can’t fit their transactions in.
There are engineering realities that we can’t hand wave away with moral declarations.
I think the main issue people are having with those who are frustrated about ordinals and inscriptions shitcoining all over the “park” is that there is no legitimate solution proposed. All technologies incorporate a balance of different trade-offs, and lots of people think that we are already in a place where keeping things the same and living with the current structure is better than continuing to try and fine tune the protocol and the way data is stored on the time-chain.
I’ve spent a decent amount of time thinking about ways to disincentivize this behavior, and although I’m not very technical, I’ve come up blank. I’m open minded and am willing to listen to the proposed solutions of others, but many Bitcoiners find it dangerous to call for engineering changes when there isn’t a straightforward solution on the table as a proposal which can even be discussed.
This post I made a week ago also came to mind in relation to blocksize and how most individuals will interact with Bitcoin in the distant future:
nostr:note1mngvwgetst5jnruuq9kr4sfz35nr84lqpfteccetxvtysm8y4xfsuwxge6
