Quote from: DooMAD on Today at 02:10:13 PM

Quote from: alani123 on Today at 01:21:22 PM

Us the community should consider that if some malignant miners want to profit off of an attack on the protocol perhaps we should cut them off

I'm curious as to how you propose doing that, exactly? Not that I agree, but just for the sake of understanding what it is you're suggesting.

Things appear to be escalating quickly if we've gone from an idea to ban ordinals and moved up to an idea to ban miners now. Do you not think that might be just a little bit reactionary?

No miner should be banned. But since they're avoiding to engage in any discussion there could be some meaningful pressure towards them too.
We know from bitcoin's past that it's possible for users of the network to signal their support for certain changes to it without having to fork the network.

This in today's situation would mean that users can run a modified bitcoin full node client that doesn't store or propagate ordinal transactions. Of course, if a miner includes ordinals in their transactions, the nodes would have to accept it unless they actually want a network fork to happen.

And for example, given that Taproot was implemented without a hard fork being required, a patch could be pushed to disable certain OP codes until they can be re-implemented later with proper spam filtering. Still all that without a network fork. If these changes are popular and are let's say pushed into bitcoin Core, miners and pools would have to make a conscious choice of supporting the most popular client and including transactions according to its rules, or running their own version of a client to profit off of expensive ordinal transactions by including them in their mined blocks.