Bitcoin doesn't censor because there was no grave need for that.
Absolutely disagree. Bitcoin doesn't censor for the simple reason that it is
the right thing to do. If you don't like censorship-resistant always-no-matter-what cash, there's a host variety of cryptocurrencies I can direct you to.
Bitcoin doesn't censor because there was no grave need for that. No transactions should ever get censored. I don't consider the Ordinal/Runes spam to be transactions (going back to the P2P transfer of digital cash), so the same rules shouldn't apply. My personal opinion, of course.
- "I don't consider OP_RETURN spam to be transactions (going back to the P2P transfer of digital cash), so the same rules shouldn't apply".
- "I don't consider LN channels to be transactions (going back to the P2P transfer of digital cash), so the same rules shouldn't apply".
- "I don't consider centralized exchanges' transactions to be peer-to-peer (going back to the P2P transfer of digital cash), so the same rules shouldn't apply".
Do you get it know?
We don't do anything. They aren't a threat.
According to you. According to someone else, they might pose a threat to the P2P cash model. According to me, no transaction that complies with the consensus rules is a threat.
There is already a solution to that which prevents us to make transactions below the dust limit.
That's only non-standard. It's perfectly valid to create dust. Be certain that if enough people were willing to trade millions of dollars for dust, the miners would bypass any standard rules. Especially if dust was standard beforehand, as already happens with Ordinals.
If the majority agrees, it can be implemented. I don't see why a random person would look at the current situation and go: This is fine, let's not do anything and just pay $20 or $50 per transaction, depending on how much the spammers are spamming at the time.
If you want the system to scale, work on scaling. Not on censorship. That's the appropriate response.