I agree that there should be some censorship and that censorship should not be done the authoritarian way, but rather the libertarian way, with a pinch of capitalism.
If someone came to me and told me they want to spray my car bright pink and do the same with my house because they're making a youtube challenge or something, I wouldn't say no, I'd ask what am I getting out of it. If you pay me $20k, go ahead and paint my car pink, I'll go get it wrapped for 5k and have another 15k left.
You want to spam the network, fine, but how much are you willing to pay?
I'd call that 'supply & demand' rather than 'censorship', but otherwise, yes. That's pretty much what it boils down to. There are cheaper blockchains to spam, so this current attention we're getting from the novelty-picture-brigade hopefully won't last long. If I'm wrong and they keep spamming the BTC chain, then it's up to the collective network as a whole to decide what, if anything, needs to be done about it. But I'd rather see a productive conversation about it, rather than a witch-hunt.
they want the spam they want the bloat they want high bitcoin fee's and low transaction counts.. they dont care about bitcoin. they are altcoiners
I don't recall anyone specifically advocating for high fees. That's just more dishonesty on your part. Reasonable people are simply suggesting that market forces shouldn't be artificially manipulated one way or the other. Fee bidding has always been organic. As soon as you attempt to tip the scales one way or another, the onus is on you to justify why everyone should accept your suggested manipulation. Your case remains unconvincing. Come up with better arguments.continue.
you dont want more tx per block to allow lower fee's/./ heck you even loved how legacy transactions were treated as 4x he fee of segwit.