Right! You are one of those:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1408#issuecomment-1566168000
Discussion
Yes. Im one of those standing for freedom and censorship resistant permissionless protocols.
I may not like the bulk of crap inscribed but I still value the capability and understand that pleading for "devs do something" will only worsen the problem if a cat and mouse game of restrictions is implemented.
Shall the UXTO cap be free and let inflate the sat supply?
Shall the whole world library and digital media be stored (inscribed) in the SSDs of each regular Bitcoin nodes?
If you are really for those values named before, then you would agree, regular Bitcoin node operators have a legit right to self defense; since the ones of your kind are performing aggression; and aggression on my property and property of those who are providing resources without compensation.
Inscriptions have no bearing on sat supply. Bitcoin full node operators implicitly agree on potential blockchain storage space growing at about 200GB annually. Similar on the UTXO set being allowed to grow which isnt a new problem caused by inscriptions.
As to libraries storing content, Id welcome it. Such data would likely be an improvement over whats there now. Ultimately people pay fees for blockspace, not for every node. Node operators run nodes for their own benefit, and indirectly support other node operators and further decentralization.
I run multiple full nodes and pruned nodes so im well aware of the resource issues and appropriately planning to migrate systems as needed and consider decommisioning others. I find it is essential to adapt to the changing world to survive and thrive.
“Inscriptions have no bearing on sat supply.”
Clearly you and your kind are wishing to inflate the sat supply:
https://ordiscan.com/inscription/357097
“Bitcoin full node operators implicitly agree on potential blockchain storage space growing at about 200GB annually.”
Previous node operators and new ones implicitly agreed on a new kind of transaction structure: Signature Segregation, nothing else.
“As to libraries storing content, Id welcome it. Such data would likely be an improvement over whats there now.”
Your kind do not need to put content and perform aggression on my storage for stream of bits which can be interpreted as wish and probably not found in other networks for some reason; like:
https://ordiscan.com/inscription/169689
https://ordiscan.com/inscription/169631
https://ordiscan.com/inscription/169739
https://ordiscan.com/inscription/169888
“people pay fees for blockspace, not for every node”
If that were true, then your are double aggressing my property, because you and your kind are not pay me fees for the blockspace which you and your kind are consuming (so far 11,8 GB).
People are paying compensation to mining operators for the loss of marginal competitiveness at block transmission due to additional transaction.
“I find it is essential to adapt to the changing world to survive and thrive.”
And that’s what every regular Bitcoin node operator is doing; it was never different; not even at genesis.
I apologize if it wasnt more clear before how Bitcoin operates. We can all do better to help newcomers to the network understand the tradeoffs of a permissionless network. I guess if you really want to control the network some you could sequester transactions by choosing not to mine them. But someone else will.
We still have to put things in context the « sats » of this inscription have absolutely no value since they are not part of the consensus, the spammer who did it just wants to play with the confusion to try to make money
So they can try to increase the supply but they won’t make it. 