Quote from: NotATether on Today at 12:57:11 PM

demonstrating the addition of non-monetary features into the protocol.

It is NOT a non-monetary feature. But see this is why you shouldn't go around concerning yourself with telling other people how they can and can't use their money, because you're just going to make mistakes in your determination. Anyone will. The safe position is to be hands off as much as possible. If you don't get this you've forgotten or never knew what bitcoin was about.

Quote

P.S. Why would I want to undermine Bitcoin? It is my largest position by a huge margin Wink

People act against their own interests all the time, also a common theme for shitcoiners is essentially that while their bitcoin is currently worth more, they own a much larger percentage of the supply from some shitcoin, so fucking up bitcoin to pump their shitcoin is something they imagine will still be a net win. But thanks for admitting that you have a conflict of interests, even if you personally think it isn't a big deal.

Quote

I don't think anyone here wants to prevent people from embedding data into the blockchain at all, they just don't want the chain to be overwhelmed with data transactions in a way that rises fee rates significantly.

That's nice but it's not really a logically consistent position. If someone is willing to pay a lot of money in fees they can drive fees up-- end of story. Nothing being discussed here has anything to do with their ability or willingness to do so. I'm also not even sure if you use bitcoin at all, because there haven't been elevated feerates since last October, and not really much then. The nice thing about activity that drive up fees is that they're self regulating-- they inherently burn up the actors funds.

This I think also explains the bizarre activity from Ocean Mining-- they were created at the height of one of those traffic booms and made anti-spam a central plank of their brand identity. The issue solved itself, as expected, and they lost relevance and inertia and appear to be failing. Now they are unethically manufacturing a controversy in a desperate attempt to stay relevant. It's an unsurprising move in the sense that their founder is a no-coiner and so he fails if ocean fails even if bitcoin flourishes.

Quote

is when chains are abused to store harmful data such as the malware example I gave earlier, which is happening on other coins BTW:

That isn't about "storing" harmful data, -- it's just that the entire ethereum ecosystem is incompetently and insecurely designed such that it's impossible to programmatically tell what anything is doing, and so attackers can snow users who are trying to figure things out.