Blocking ordinals from Bitcoin is not stifling anyone's free speech. Those degens are free to do whatever they want with stupid jpegs on the Internet.
The Bitcoin blockchain is intended to record one single type of data: financial transactions. Any other type of data on the Bitcoin blockchain is spam and doesn't belong.
I don't understand the ordinal apologists trying to justify people stuffing a square peg in a round hole.
Bitcoin is not the everything app and never should be.
The developers of the protocol and those of us choosing which protocol and which nodes to use are the ones to determine that. It's their network. Voluntary action will be the determinant if what's legitimate. I agree that blocking ordinals would not be a violation of rights if it was voluntarily done by all the miners, etc. Until then, ordinals are also not a violation of rights.
Some of the largest miners only care about revenue and wouldn't give a shit if every block was all ordinals, but if that were the case then Bitcoin will have failed it's purpose. Can't rely solely on miner incentives.
I mught not be thinking straight tonight... what I mean is whoever owns the network gets to decide. But then, who owns it? I feel like my ignorance is showing.
Users, contributing developers, block producing nodes, and hash providers all play a role.
I guess I would argue that all voluntary action on bitcoin is legitimate use of the network until it becomes impossible to do because of the code. It's got to be a cooperative effort and a debate, and I think a distinction should be made between what **is** legitimate and what you think **should be** legitimate. Bitcoin does not have intentions. The people, separately, do, and express a part of their intentions by using contributing to, or augmenting, bitcoin. And bitcoin has no unified intent since it is not solely owned by anyone.
If you believe that the code has reached a state of perfection I suppose. No more flaws. In 2010 the code allowed someone to create 184 million Bitcoin. That was not intended, but the code as it was at the time allowed it to happen. When the code permits things to happen that were not intended, it should be adjusted. People being able to stuff large amounts of non-financial data into a transaction was an unintended consequence of the Taproot update. Should we suddenly decide that there should be no more updates? I don't follow that logic. This is critical financial software. It's not a fucking game, and it's not a public graffiti wall. There is already not enough block space for financial data.
Yeah I'm not arguing that there should be no updates. That would go against my actual argument. The idea is that we don't own the network exclusively, so we have no way of deciding what should happen on it except by a consensus mechanism that everyone consents to as expressed by their use of the product. We don’t get to dictate what is legitimate. I don’t get to proclaim that ordinals are legitimate and therefore I am blocking updates from stopping them, nor do I get to proclaim they are illegitimate and therefore I am upgrading the software. Unless you actually are the person working on the software, and even then everyone else has to volunteer to switch to that version.
At least, that's the idea. This isn’t some well-formed thesis. I'm basing it on my best guess of the natural rights regarding blockchain, which I haven't given that much thought. And I'm attempting to provide an alternative perspective. I think it's best to see what works. However this goes. Ordinals are not violating anyone's rights, and stopping ordinals would not violate anyone's rights either so I don't give a shit.
