“Inscriptions have no bearing on sat supply.” Clearly you and your kind are wishing to inflate the sat supply: “Bitcoin full node operators implicitly agree on potential blockchain storage space growing at about 200GB annually.” Previous node operators and new ones implicitly agreed on a new kind of transaction structure: Signature Segregation, nothing else. “As to libraries storing content, Id welcome it. Such data would likely be an improvement over whats there now.” Your kind do not need to put content and perform aggression on my storage for stream of bits which can be interpreted as wish and probably not found in other networks for some reason; like: “people pay fees for blockspace, not for every node” If that were true, then your are double aggressing my property, because you and your kind are not pay me fees for the blockspace which you and your kind are consuming (so far 11,8 GB). People are paying compensation to mining operators for the loss of marginal competitiveness at block transmission due to additional transaction. “I find it is essential to adapt to the changing world to survive and thrive.” And that’s what every regular Bitcoin node operator is doing; it was never different; not even at genesis.

Replies (2)

I apologize if it wasnt more clear before how Bitcoin operates. We can all do better to help newcomers to the network understand the tradeoffs of a permissionless network. I guess if you really want to control the network some you could sequester transactions by choosing not to mine them. But someone else will.
We still have to put things in context the « sats » of this inscription have absolutely no value since they are not part of the consensus, the spammer who did it just wants to play with the confusion to try to make money So they can try to increase the supply but they won’t make it. image