Sorry to hear this. Unfortunately, that’s not loaded emotional bs. It’s an accurate historical representation of the last 3 years. > Miners decide what goes in blocks… I pay fees, it’s included. You’re only partially correct. Miners decide what goes into blocks, but that doesn’t mean that paying a fee guarantees your transaction gets included. 1) if a transaction violates protocol rules, nodes will reject the block even if a miner tries to include it. The network enforces consensus rules, not the miner. 2) if a large mining pool chooses to enforce something like OFAC-style compliance, it can simply refuse to mine your transaction even if you pay the fee. That is, by definition, censorship. Filters are different. They are rate limits. They don’t examine the content of a transaction or its origin; they only constrain things like size or resource usage. Not censorship. If you respect the filters and the miners don’t censor you, your transaction gets mined. If you disrespect the filters, you’re not fighting censorship, you’re hacking your way in at every node’s expense. > Inscriptions work because SegWit was designed that way. Untrue. They exist because someone figured out how to exploit a feature that was meant to make financial transactions more efficient for a completely different, unintended purpose. In sane protocol development, cases like this are treated as bugs and fixed. Read the post above again and it should become obvious. Instead, the proposed fix was rejected. That decision allowed a predatory market to form and take root, creating a persistent incentive to keep stuffing this garbage into blocks indefinitely. > Uncapping OP_RETURN was pragmatic: data gets in anyway, better to use prunable form. How exactly is pragmatic? Data shows it’s not reducing new inscriptions, in fact now both channels are being abused. > Bitcoin is not “financial-only”. Anyone can use blockspace they pay for. Core in fact aligned policy with reality. It was always financial-only, at least up to Core 30. Core aligned policy with special pressure groups’ interests, not with the network ones. BIP110 will realign the protocol to what it always was.