The general tone of the thread, to my understanding, could be summarised as "Everyone else needs to take action because I'm personally not happy with something".
If that's what you're going with, I can tell you right now you're in for some disappointment. You're up against people who went right ahead and just did what they wanted to do. They didn't make requests for others to act. They didn't ask permission. They just did it. That's how you get shit done in this environment.
This isn't the customer service department for Bitcoin. You don't get to come here and moan at everyone until your problem is fixed for you. Find your own solution.
I guess I missed the memo that said discussion is bad now. If that's what you're going with, I can tell you right now you're in for some disappointment. You're up against people who went right ahead and just did what they wanted to do. They didn't make requests for others to act. They didn't ask permission. They just did it. That's how you get shit done in this environment.
This isn't the customer service department for Bitcoin. You don't get to come here and moan at everyone until your problem is fixed for you. Find your own solution.
Honestly though, any meaningful change that's meant to last keeps the needs of the people in mind.
Were bitcoin users consulted about rising fees by those that inscribe Ordinals and BRC-20 tokens? Of course not, so there's the downside of "going ahead and fucking doing it".
However, there's still a slight chance that even though "inscriptions" do harm on bitcoin's basic functionality, maybe most bitcoin users aren't against them.
How else are we supposed to find out if not through discussion in the community?