Quote from: BrianH on Today at 07:22:13 PM

I don't understand this "censorship" argument. The ability to create BRC-20 tokens was recently added to Bitcoin's code by the developers.

But other methods of creating tokens have existed for some time (see d5000's post). BRC-20 is merely one of the first to gain significant popularity. It's rare to see widespread use of tokens to the point where it has caused noticeable levels of congestion. Someone managed to drum up a fair amount of hype for this particular implementation and so lots of people have opted to use it recently. But equally, someone could just as easily have hyped up an earlier implementation which didn't utilise Taproot and we'd be in much the same position. And if there was an agreed manner in which to close the Taproot loophole (and I'm not convinced that there will be), people may even elect to use one of those other existing implementations to clog up everyone's mempools once again. And no doubt you'd then be calling for more intervention to censor that too. Where does it end?

Bitcoin still has the strongest security of any Proof-of-Work coin, the most prevalent network effects in terms of utility, and garners the most recognition on the world stage. The silly-picture-brigade changes nothing in that regard. I'm not going anywhere because of that. But I would seriously consider my continued involvement in Bitcoin if your misguided ilk get their way. Pleading to those you perceive to be a central authority (I'd also point out that devs aren't a central authority, so you've got that bit wrong, too) to prevent people from using Bitcoin is utterly repugnant to me. Again, I perceive your ideals to be a bigger threat to the health and well-being of Bitcoin than any so-called spammer.