The miners have that duty.
These are the same question.
Too many people were getting the impression that OP_RETURN was a feature, meant to be used. It was never intended as such, only a way to "leave the windows unlocked so we don't need to replace the glass when someone breaks in". That is, to reduce the damage caused by people abusing Bitcoin.
Hello Luke, thank you for stopping by. I am not clear on a few things if you do not mind.
Why do you speak of it as decided that data storage in the Blockchain constitutes abuse? How is Bitcoin actually hurt by this?
For example compared to newer protocol's Bitcoin has some massive disadvantages: an energy-inefficient proof-of-work mining system, long block times, a deflationary money supply - Newer protocols will have advantages in all of these regards (and most likely the 2.0 functionality that Counterparty has as well at some point). I would be inclined to think Bitcoin needs the added functionality to stay relevant to other rapidly developing technologies.
Not exactly. Miners certainly have the ability to decide which transactions they do and don't include, but they have a duty to use that ability to protect the system from abuses.
And no, "don't abuse us with OP_RETURN" does not mean we are forcing you to abuse us in other ways.
If we lock the windows, we aren't forcing the burglar to break them. Stop trying to blame the victim.
Miners collect fees, block rewards - and most importantly of all can decide which transactions they want to include in their blocks. Since there is #free-choice as to whether to include the transactions - I don't really understand on what grounds you put #Miners in the #Victims, #Abused category.
It's more like #Abuse of the #Users to quite arbitrarily decide for them what the protocol is and isn't to be used for.