> On the exploit framing, I understand the analogy to using YouTube for storage or a bank database for encoding data. But there’s a key difference. Those are private platforms with terms of service. Bitcoin is a permissionless protocol. The question isn’t whether inscriptions are the intended use, but whether Bitcoin can remain permissionless while enforcing intended use. bitcoin is a money protocol, break any other use case is not against the protocol. and again bitcoin doesnt live on the ether, in runs on people's devices. bitcoin is permissionless money. > Now on consensus versus policy, you’re right that policy allows parallel rules without chain splits. That’s valuable. But when the debate becomes not just what policy individuals choose, but what policy should be standard or what pools should be boycotted for not filtering, we’ve moved from free market policy to prescriptive policy. many policy has been part of the bitcoin for a very long time. they are part of what bitcoin is. only reason they are not consensus is just in case, so we dont accidentally trap ourselves. these are yes mostly standard. and many has the purpose of mitigating the blob data storage usage from the early satoshi days. > Your vision of a free market of network policy with custom filter scripts and plugins is actually more aligned with permissionless principles than mandating everyone filter the same way. Let nodes compete, let fee markets work, let the best approach win. exactly knots go up, and everyone has right to believe other implementation is shit, and go do wars on it. everyone has right to preach knots, and teach others why its the best option we have. its social. and because technically core arguments makes no sense, if people think longer than 10 mins.