This is a confused argument. Money is a telos. "Bitcoin is money" is a teleological assertion, not a conclusion. Arguing it this way is a category error.
I could say "there's no such thing as a knife...
I agree that the purpose of Bitcoin was and is to be money. But the point I'm making is that that framing is only useful to a point, and can't explain all of Bitcoin's use cases. There are transactions out there that serve a purpose only known to its sender and receiver, and that may not be monetary in nature to them. Should they be denied access to the chain in that case?
That seems to be the argument made by anti-spammers right now. They're trying to use "Bitcoin is money" as a way to restrict any transaction they deem is not money. That's an abuse of the narrative in my opinion. If I can come up with a non-monetary use case for Bitcoin that follows the node's rules and is acceptable to miners, there's no one that can tell me it's not allowed.
Instead, these folks are trying to make Bitcoin permissioned, where you need the permission from masters who define what "money" is to transact on-chain.
That seems to be the argument made by anti-spammers right now. They're trying to use "Bitcoin is money" as a way to restrict any transaction they deem is not money. That's an abuse of the narrative in my opinion. If I can come up with a non-monetary use case for Bitcoin that follows the node's rules and is acceptable to miners, there's no one that can tell me it's not allowed.
Instead, these folks are trying to make Bitcoin permissioned, where you need the permission from masters who define what "money" is to transact on-chain.
20🤔1
