According to your logic, the 21 million limit would be censorship. You‘re confusing concepts. The word censorship applies to limiting the free exchange of ideas. Those ideas are exchanged in public squares (Nostr, X, Hyde Park). There should be no rules. Then there are market places (eBay, Amazon, Les Halle’s). Lots of rules. Then there’s money ( #bitcoin, gold). Two key criteria: Scarcity, immutability. If you make Bitcoin into a public square, according to your logic, the 21 million would be censorship. Are you confusing these concepts on purpose? Orwellian new speak?

Replies (1)

You've completely missed the entire point. The network is being eroded by large OP_RETURN payloads. I am not arguing that large OP_RETURN payloads should be allowed, nor am I arguing that removing large OP_RETURN payloads censors monetary transactions. I am arguing that removing them with a consensus policy change has negative consequences. Lawmakers don’t need new statutes; they can simply point to “Bitcoin already excludes Y”, and press for Z (e.g., “exclude sanctioned payload types”, “restrict non-KYC script paths”). You’ve demonstrated precedent and capability. You are basically incapable to understand that a small group of developers being able to change Bitcoin's consensus rules (global law) has pros and cons and is not all positive. I'm pretty sure I put "censorship" in quotes in the article most times. Probably not every time - it's a long article (which you most likely haven't read but decided to argue).