With that said, Ordinals is an attack because it is abusing Bitcoin which is a payment network not a cloud storage.
2014 called and has questions about this statement. Where were all your complaints then? Are wedding vows in the blockchain an "attack", too?
Additionally this attack only became possible by finding and using an exploit in the protocol that was added through a past soft-fork.
Why do people keep saying this? Embedding pictures and assorted crap was possible long before that. Various crappy forkcoins which didn't implement that change are also full of images and junk. There are numerous ways to embed arbitrary data into the chain. And that's been the case since you first registered your account here. You're at risk of beginning to sound like fruitloopfranky1 if you keep spreading misinformation like that. Don't go off the deep-end like him, please.
You could argue the softfork made it more cost-effective to fill the chain with crap, but it's a complete myth to say the softfork made it possible.
And the primary idea behind that fork is to improve throughput. What's your alternative? Would you rather developers didn't work on scaling Bitcoin at all anymore? 'Cause I hear a lot of bitching about this, but not much in the way of an alternative path to explore. Tell you what, when you create a functional time machine, or crystal ball, and you can accurately predict in advance when someone is going to use new functionality in a way that was never intended, maybe then your critiques can serve an actual purpose.
