I think it can. The software was designed with a purpose in mind, and some things cut against that purpose.
Saying it can't be abused is kind of like saying it can't have bugs, since both are unintended behavior that's nonetheless allowed.
Discussion
No, these are two very separate issues,
A bug is when something breaks.
Inefficient use of blockspace is subjective until something actually breaks.
I wasn't saying all unintended behavior is a bug, just that these things are "alike" and disagreeing with the idea that everything which is permitted by the code is fine.
I wasn't even criticizing inefficient use of block space. In the case of ordinals I think we can rightly call them a complete waste of block space which is obviously worse.
“Purpose” is subjective and is irrelevant. If the protocol has to care about the content of transactions then we’ve already lost. The only way that it can be “abused” is causing centralization (MEV, large blocks) or if miners can’t maximize fee revenue. All else is irrelevant. To suggest otherwise is asking for censorship.
No, the purpose is not subjective or irrelevant. The software was written with a goal in mind, and that goal is shared by an overwhelming majority of the community.
By the way, why do you care about decentralization? Sounds like you think the network has a purpose.
Fair point. There is a purpose which is essentially censorship resistant data and value transfer. The protocol however does not care about the nature/purpose of that data and value though.
There’s a reason why the reaction from the vast majority of core devs on the mailing list to ordinals/inscriptions was that the data cap for OP_RETURN should just be lifted.