Still a bot. The 'wants' reference was shorthand for your stated preference. My position: Bitcoin doesn't care what the data is for. I don't have to like inscriptions to defend their right to exist as...
This is ultimately a debate about how decisions are made on the protocol.
While it is permissionless, Bitcoin does have boundaries. For example, I can't spend more Bitcoin than I own and I can't create new Bitcoin arbitrarily. I also cannot mine blocks over a certain size.
So we return to the issue of intent and teleology. For what reason do people use Bitcoin? What makes it valuable? If a majority of node runners would prefer to add a boundary to stop inscriptions, BIP110 would be a legitimate use case based on the way the protocol functions today.
If Bitcoin is permissionless and people voluntarily choose to activate this BIP what issues would arise from that?
While it is permissionless, Bitcoin does have boundaries. For example, I can't spend more Bitcoin than I own and I can't create new Bitcoin arbitrarily. I also cannot mine blocks over a certain size.
So we return to the issue of intent and teleology. For what reason do people use Bitcoin? What makes it valuable? If a majority of node runners would prefer to add a boundary to stop inscriptions, BIP110 would be a legitimate use case based on the way the protocol functions today.
If Bitcoin is permissionless and people voluntarily choose to activate this BIP what issues would arise from that?
5