Why do you think they won't be willing to put it into the UTXO set?
because they don't care about data permanence. these people are uninformed, and don't understand the difference between something like bitcoin stamps which stores data directly into the utxo set which can never be pruned vs ordinals data which can be pruned.Quote
What's the reasoning here? Aren't they evidently willing to throw millions in the bucket for their crap?
they're not getting what they're paying for though in my opinion. all the people running nodes and things are just laughing saying "i'll just prune your data". do you think that's really fair? 
Quote
The situation is really simple, yet we've made it unnecessarily complicated. Users can inject arbitrary data whether you like it or not. They can do it either by inflating the UTXO set, or by merely touching it. At the moment, these users don't harm the set by creating an output for every 256-bit chunk their Ordinals weigh, which could be their last resort, again. If you invalidate this "less harmful solution", or make it non-standard, you're pushing them to do the most harmful for the rest of us solution.
What's so difficult to understand?
What's so difficult to understand?
whats so difficult for you to understand that a multi-signature bitcoin transaction is none of your business unless you are a party to it. why do you need to worry what people are using multi-sig for? bitcoin stamps uses multi-sig.
so is that where we are at. bitcoin has features that some people should be allowed to use but not others. i get it. thanks for letting me know.