Quote from: pooya87 on Today at 05:23:34 AM

With that said, other methods of abusing bitcoin are already facing a lot of limitations making them inefficient ways of spamming the network in comparison to the Ordinals exploit that is basically facing only one limit which is the block weight and is so much cheaper.

Inefficient yes, but still entirely possible. If requiring them to pay a bit more or even double per transaction than they are paying now by forcing them to use a less efficient method of embedding their data is enough to kill ordinals, then they will easily burn themselves out on the current fee market and we don't need to censor them at all.

Quote from: hatshepsut93 on Today at 06:02:41 AM

Centralized exchanges and other entities are a natural part of the Bitcoin ecosystem, so it's not a spam.

Exactly my point. You think centralized exchanges aren't spam; I think they are. These are subjective opinions. We might agree that ordinals are spam, but there are plenty of others who disagree with us.

Quote from: hatshepsut93 on Today at 06:02:41 AM

Well if they were as popular and problematic as ordianls, they should have been treated as a bug too.

So we are quite happy with unproductive nuisance until it affects the fees that a particular group of users have to pay, at which point that particular group of users will seek to ban it? That is not the makings of a decentralized system.

Quote from: hatshepsut93 on Today at 06:02:41 AM

Bitcoin's only function should be sending money

Then you need to campaign to remove things like OP_RETURN outputs and all burn addresses, and introduce zero knowledge proof of keys for every transaction as I explained above so you can prove that you are sending money to a known private key, which would require more block space and fees than ordinals do. And what about things like coinjoin transactions then, which are already caught in the crossfire of this nonsense? You are just moving your money around with coinjoins, not sending it to anyone else. Do we ban those too? Or consolidation transactions? What about if I want to move money from one wallet to another?

My point is that as soon as you start placing arbitrary limits on other people's use cases, then other people can use the exact same reasoning to start placing limits on your use case. Bitcoin is supposed to be about freedom, not freedom as long as you use it in a way we like.

Quote from: stompix on Today at 01:12:36 PM

Really fun times to watch this, I wonder what's the plan to clean the mempool once 1 millions "legit" users will try to use the chain, ar we going to have health check on the tx or credit score attached? What is he going to ban next?

Next up - fees are too high to make a transaction every time you want to pay for something, so instead store your coins on an account with this centralized third party who can then pay other people with an account with them instantly and with zero fees. We could call it a "bank". Problem solved!