Let's be realistic, even if your initiative is implemented in the form of a new version of the bitcoin core, we will not be able to reach a consensus in voting for its implementation, given that the current situation is beneficial for miners.
FYI they were saying the same thing back in 2017 that the spam attack is benefiting miners and they will never accept the soft fork and they will continue spamming to keep the fees up. We know what happened after that...The growing adoption of Bitcoin, especially by nation states, may also lead to serious mempool congestions and unbearably high transaction fees. Would you also call it an attack on Bitcoin, or where should we draw the line? Who are to decide which use case of Bitcoin is acceptable? I think that the decentralization of Bitcoin should work in both ways: no one can prevent you from using Bitcoin, and you cannot prevent anyone from accessing it and using it in whatever way they see fit.
By that logic we should not have hard forked after the 2010 value overflow exploit and called it "legitimate usage of the protocol" and allowed the miner to keep the massive amount of coins they received as reward after exploiting the system!As I've said many times, bitcoin use case is very clear. It is NOT a cloud storage so anything like Ordinals that exploit the protocol to use bitcoin blockchain as a cloud storage should be prevented. If you want to compare this exploit with legitimate adoption by people and countries then I don't really know how to answer that question
