Quote from: pooya87 on Today at 06:39:14 AM

Generally speaking the arguments about decentralization, censorship resistance, fee market, etc. that some users like DooMAD keep bringing up are not wrong on their own, the problem is that they have nothing to do with this topic! Since we aren't arguing about normal usage of bitcoin, this Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System that led to all these troubles. We are arguing about a malicious usage of this system for something it is not designed to be (a cloud storage) that is causing problems.

I can see where you're coming from. But, what I'm struggling with is that, when I first got into Bitcoin back in 2013, I watched a whole bunch of videos, listened to Andreas Antonopoulos and other such personalities, read loads of different articles and websites. Even back then, people were saying things like "currency is just the first application". That Bitcoin usage would eventually expand to include things like property rights, deeds and other financial instruments. If I went looking, I could probably find dozens of examples.

It's certainly possible that people weren't pausing to consider the implications of promoting these ideas. Perhaps it was just some starry-eyed fantasies about what might be possible with this exciting new technology. But, when these ideas were raised, no one took issue with it. I don't recall anyone at that point in time saying "No, Bitcoin is just for money" and that it can't be anything else. There wasn't any community backlash that I remember seeing when people discussed these ideas. That only happened once people actually started doing it. So, imagine my surprise when some people suddenly start saying this can't happen, when other people have been saying it absolutely would happen for the entire time I've been here.

Now, I fully concede that no one ever would have anticipated that the property rights in question would be a bunch of foolish speculators who want to own some inane pictures. I genuinely do appreciate why some people feel like that's a step too far. It's absurd. Borderline insane. You won't hear any arguments from me on that front. I don't understand the appeal in the slightest. I want no part of that.

However, if people have been moving in this direction for the better part of a decade, completely unchallenged, is it really justified to then move the goalposts on them and say it was never meant to be this way? I get the sense we're trying to shut the gate after the horse has bolted. If we really wanted to prevent this sort of thing, I'm fairly sure we're about 10 years too late.

My hope is merely that the silly-picture-brigade loses momentum and people go back to looking at the more "legitimate" use-cases regarding property rights and such. Things that would have tangible benefits for adoption and utility, take up less space and not cause so much disruption. But I'm not convinced that every single Bitcoin user has been left with the overwhelming impression that Bitcoin was always "just money". And I'm far from convinced that taking a heavy-handed approach is a viable solution to this issue. I know slippery-slope arguments aren't considered valid in most cases, but I do have serous concerns about Bitcoin remaining permissionless and open.

That's where I'm at right now. Thoroughly dismayed by calls for a centrally-planned intervention over something that could have been averted if people had raised their concerns earlier. Much like Bitcoin itself, I don't see how you put the genie back in the bottle. This can't be un-invented.