Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 09:46:46 AM

Quote from: pooya87 on Today at 07:51:13 AM

This is where you and I disagree. I say we should not allow bitcoin blockchain to be largely used for something other than a "peer to peer electronic cash" ledger, in this case for cloud storage.

Neither do I want that, but I want it less than I want to not turn Bitcoin into a censorship nightmare. I'm honestly curious if you've read my points. There's no way to prevent someone from using it as a cloud storage; yes, you can disincentivize financially, but we already do that. It's called block size limit. Anything beyond that introduces subjectivity into play. If there's real demand for these Ordinals, which I think it's questionable but say if, then it won't take long until they avoid your "measures" and turn into indistinguishable Bitcoin transactions.

You calling it censorship also doesn't make any sense because you never called version 0 censorship when it placed a limit on the witness size preventing exactly this attack. But all of a sudden requiring to place the same exact limit on version 1 is considered censorship!
BTW the incentive is the parallel market for gambling on these fake-tokens that provides the money they need to spam the chain with their arbitrary data. In other words the fees won't bother or disincentivize them.