Removing ordinals will reduce transaction fees, meaning miners will make less Bitcoin per transaction.
How do you propose bitcoin survives when the block subsidy is near zero and miners depend solely on transaction fees to sustain them, when even a modest increase in transaction fees is enough to make 99% of the community want to ban the transactions paying those fees? A tail emission? Merged mining?
I believe that removing ordinals is necessary to improve the scalability and efficiency of Bitcoin.
Banning transaction you don't like doesn't change bitcoin's efficiency whatsoever, it simply decreases the number of transactions in the mempool. If you want bitcoin to scale, then work on scaling, not on censorship.
It's not a censorship, they exploit bitcoin protocol, they find a loophole and what's wrong with feeling loopholes? Nothing.
As I've explained already in this thread, it is impossible to ban all methods of embedding arbitrary data in the blockchain without the solution being worse than the problem. We can only make it somewhat more expensive by forcing them to move the data from witnesses to public keys (or similar), and if slightly increased expense is enough to burn out the ordinal spam then we can equally do nothing and it will burn itself out anyway.
That is really a subjective but so is everything, absolutely everything is subjective because everything has positive and negative sides, absolutely everything!
Not at all. There are plenty of objective truths. We can objectively prove that we know the private key to an address by signing a message from that private key (because the chance of randomly generating a valid signature is so infinitesimally small as to be impossible). Whether or not a signature is valid does not depend on the opinion of the person verifying it. It is either valid or it isn't. Whether Transaction A is spam or not depends entirely on the viewpoint of the person looking at it. To us it is spam. To someone else it servers a purpose.
How will you use bitcoin mempool gets massively flooded?
I'll pay the appropriate fee.
Bitcoin was created for P2P transactions, to get rid of 3rd parties but Ordinals are not real financial transactions. So, it's not a censorship.
And again, as I've said above, centralized exchanges are third parties and are not peer to peer. So if you are using those reasons to argue for banning ordinals, then you should be arguing to ban centralized exchanges as well. Can't pick and choose.
if ordinals had been baked into the protocol by satoshi himself and always had been a part of bitcoin then your argument would be pretty strong.
Ok, so let's say we ban this method of embedding arbitrary data in to the blockchain. Ordinals then move to embedding data in to public keys instead, which takes up more space and so the spam problem gets worse, rather than better. That would be fair game at that point because embedding data in to public keys has been possible since day 1 of the protocol?