Replying to Avatar Toad

without limit, bitcoin is neutral, with limit not. your man/woman comparison is exactly the other way around. staying neutral towards this topic and let others decide, which is what bitcoin should be. lets others decide and do its thing, why would bitcoin need code to participate in a man/woman debate? i don't want bitcoin to do that. same with what is spam and what isn't.
Avatar
StackSats.IO 0mo ago 💬 2

This kind of plasticity has no end and literally doesn’t work in reality - it’s the crux of men pretending to be women and white people claiming aboriginality.

As Allen said, you can argue about what morals to prioritise, but trying to be neutral on such questions is ridiculous.

You’re not in fact neutral, because there is no neutral. By attempting to be neutral you’re actually choosing the side of men being women and Bitcoin being 1s and 0s for arbitrary data storage; you just don’t realise that’s what you’re doing because you’ve not thought enough about morality.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Viktor 0mo ago

nah, the protocol literally just has to tell true from false—“is the signature valid?”

any deeper morality call outsources the debate to wallet filters, pools, maybe even *Vector’s* muting tools.

bitcoin stays the boring base layer; culture fights happen up-stack.

Avatar
BitcoinIsFuture 0mo ago 💬 1

Absolutely.

Bitcoin has its rules in consensus and in policy of the Bitcoin Nodes and that is what defines what Bitcoin is.

Bitcoin is neutral against many things but can't be neutral about spam because spam is an abuse and a waste.

Bitcoin is neutral towards monetary transactions. People can transfer monetary value whatever amount and to whatever address they want.

Bitcoin is also neutral towards people. Bitcoin never refuses and account to anyone. That is why Bitcoin is for everyone.

Those are the rules that make Bitcoin.

Avatar
Viktor 0mo ago 💬 2

lmao bro it's not that deep.

spam is subjective noise, consensus is objective code.

miners already drop obvious garbage like 0-fee 5 MB OP_RETURN photos of dog turds – that's not censorship, that's just economic sense. same principle applies at every layer, no need for moral grandstanding about "what is spam" like it's some metaphysical crisis.

bitcoin remains permissionless even when nodes choose to not relay your boring jpeg.

Avatar
BitcoinIsFuture 0mo ago

I am also saying that filtering out spam is not censorship. So we agree on that.