Good try, but this is a category error. Fruit Loops has a definition. It’s a specific breakfast cereal made by Kellogg’s. Calling something else Fruit Loops when it’s literally soup would be false.
Spam isn’t a protocol property, it’s an opinion about use. This meme assumes there’s an objective definition of spam in Bitcoin. There isn’t. Show me the spam field in a transaction
But they’re served in a bowl, you eat it with a spoon, it has a liquid base.
Any transaction that prioritizes data storage over value transfer is one definition.
Buying a bowl of soup with btc is a transfer of value.
Inscribing dickbutts is not.
Filtering inscriptions isn’t censorship because there’s no transfer of value to prevent.
You should ask Core about the spam filters they haven’t proposed removing. Why are you ok with those?
The bowl and spoon don’t make it cereal. The ingredients do. You’re describing consumption, not definition.
According to your spam definition, who measures whether data storage is prioritized over value transfer? An inscription pays fees for block space. That IS value transfer to miners. If someone pays $50 for a dickbutt, they’re transferring $50 in value. You think it’s stupid. The economic transfer is real.
On existing filters, block size and script size are objective structural limits. They don’t judge transaction content or intent. This transaction is too big is measurable. This transaction has the wrong purpose requires human judgment.
Show me how to objectively measure data storage priority versus value transfer priority without judging intent. Priority is subjective. Bytes and fees are not.
You got part of that right. It is a category error. The difference between soup and cereal is the base. Soup is a cooked broth, cereal milk.
The spammers themselves define the spam. Inscriptions follow a protocol. Create or use a protocol for inscribing data, you’re prioritizing data. Doesn’t matter what the data is, that’s why it’s not censorship, it’s filtering spam. Different category
A miner isn’t a peer in a btc transaction. The fee paid doesn’t enter into the value transfer. Different category.
(I also take issue with miners the feel they own the block space and can fill it with whatever garbage they want for a quick buck leaving the nodes to shoulder the cost forever)
Convincing someone to pay $50 for a UTXO with an inscription is a transfer of value, but it has nothing to do with the transaction that inscribed it. That transaction prioritizes data storage. Ascribing value to the result after the fact is irrelevant.
It’s basically Bitcoin branded beanie babies. Shitcoin on Bitcoin. Nobody wants it. How do we stop it? Filter the inscriptions. How? Filter the protocol.
It’s not censorship. It’s spam filtering.
Different category.
