As the fee increase the spam will slow down but never completely die out, it might prevent people from buying coffee on chain but a lot of these use cases would’ve on layer 2 anyway. block size is limited anyway eventually a lot more activity has to happen on layer 2. I get both sides and it’s interesting endeavors just don’t think there is a rush and enough support at the moment.

You don’t censor spam, you rate limit it. Censorship requires content moderation by a centralised entity. There is no such entity in Bitcoin besides core devs. The rest are nodes that don’t do content moderation. They enforce rate limits, and they always have. Honestly it’s tiresome reading about the censorship narrative. Core propagandist just throw away some words like censorship, permissionless, free markets (all good stuff) but without the nuance around them and plebs eat them up and start repeating them ad infinitum. It’s so stupid.

to claim stopping, or at least reducing, spam is "censorship" is the most retarded, illogical take possible.

Censoring spam is not censoring bitcoin- it’s making it a monetary network only. The bribed/corrupted Core developers are turning bitcoin into a spam network like ETH specifically to make it weak enough to fail.

This this way, for public record you have to write down everything that is said. (In an English-speaking place) Everyone can say anything they want. But if a large section of people say things in chinese now the recorders are writing paragraphs of phonetic translations with english characters. This creates a strain on everyone trying to read the record and creates an attack vector where people embed very offensive things in chinese phonetics that when said in english most people wouldn't like to say or read. Narrowing the rules of "You can only speak english but say ANYTHING you want" is not a censorship of idea conveyance (the point of language). The point of a protocol is its purpose. The purpose of bitcoin is to transfer units from one set of addresses to another. Creating outputs that go nowhere, creating unspendable outputs, embedding superfluous data in an input, and creating anchorpoints on outputs that hold massive data stores are all outside this purpose. Saying no one can define spam or it's a meaningless distinction are using somekind of post-modernist "nothing means anything" anti-logic.

Show me a non-monetary transaction. Pretty sure they all involve an exchange of sats.