⭐ Merited by HmmMAA (1)
~
You either being sarcastic or you completely missed the point and misunderstood me!
How can I misunderstand this?
I was speaking on Bitcoin behalf, not on my singular behalf.
I was answering directly to this quote of yours.
It's not my quote and you couldn't have answered any of my posts since that one was my first post in the topic.
With this line of thinking, there ends up being no spokesperson for Bitcoin at all, which is not necessarily a good thing. It means nobody is voicing any decisions of their own. Consensus depends on many people making their own decisions and picking a majority.
Worse than the Bitcoin Foundation fiasco? Doubt it!
Besides, there is a huge difference between one hundred people showing their proposals and 1 million voting for what they think is the best one and one guy telling others how things will be done. This is the thing with decentralization, there is no official spokesperson, and the community decides who the best spokesperson is by following him and agreeing with his choices. Any other "solution" is just reverting to a centralized dictatorial system.
Excellent point! Can you imagine how much this spam is hurting El Salvador? Their minimum wage averages around $300/month. The BRC-20 transaction fee was >10% of what they earned in a month. This bug that was introduced a few months ago must be strangling global adoption of Bitcoin. Even the current fee is prohibitive. Anyone who was using Bitcoin in El Salvador must be switching to alternatives now.
Sorry, but you missed the second point.
Banning monkeys or orcs 20 or borgs 40 or whatever won't help the people of Salvador if every of the 100 million Indians that supposedly own Bitcoin would decide to make a tx. Even if 10% of the people in Salvador will make one chain tx per day it will be enough just for them to clog the network. Bitcoin needs to scale, that's it! It doesn't get any more simple than this.