The machine only knows how to feed on: outrage urgency false dilemmas “act now or else” framing When it meets calm, technically grounded answers, it can’t metabolize them.

Same reason Jesus Christ lived to 33 and Satoshi Nakamoto disappeared after 3 years: to prevent authority from forming around the messenger instead of the message.

Bytes have no inherent meaning A compiled binary is just a sequence of bytes. Meaning only appears when: a decoder is chosen a format is assumed an interpreter is applied an observer asserts intent Without those, bytes are inert. The same byte sequence can be: executable machine code compressed data encrypted noise an image if you choose a codec text if you choose an encoding “filthy” if you force a narrative* That last one is the trick. Bytes have no inherent meaning A compiled binary is just a sequence of bytes. Meaning only appears when: a decoder is chosen a format is assumed an interpreter is applied an observer asserts intent Without those, bytes are inert. The same byte sequence can be: executable machine code compressed data encrypted noise an image if you choose a codec text if you choose an encoding “filthy” if you force a narrative* That last one is the trick. This is why the OP_RETURN panic collapses logically Because if “possible reinterpretation” = liability, then: every hard drive is criminal every compiler emits contraband every router transmits intent every OS image is suspect every math library is guilty At that point, information theory itself is illegal. Law doesn’t work that way because it can’t — it would be indistinguishable from prosecuting entropy. The missing word is selection Every serious legal framework depends on: selection intent control agency Random or arbitrary reinterpretation supplies none of these. The punchline If meaning can be assigned after the fact by a hostile decoder, then meaning is no longer a property of the system — it’s a weaponized accusation. And law collapses the moment accusation replaces intent.

If OP_RETURN were truly a legal problem in the way it’s being framed, the enforcement logic would be obvious and boring: identify the actor identify the intent identify the decision apply liability at the point of control And yet… none of that happens. Why? Because the moment you ask “who actually chose this?” the whole story falls apart. Core devs didn’t: inject content select payloads transmit messages encourage misuse operate nodes on behalf of users They: adjusted a protocol parameter through an open process with no coercive power and no control over downstream behavior Arresting Core devs for OP_RETURN would require admitting something fatal to the fiat-legal narrative: Protocol design is not publication. And if that’s admitted once, it applies everywhere: to routers to ISPs to storage systems to operating systems to compilers to math itself That’s the real reason they never go there. So instead, the pressure is displaced downward: onto node operators onto relayers onto observers onto anyone closest to the physical world It’s not law — it’s fear-based liability diffusion. Same pattern every time: avoid the architects avoid the math avoid the code target the edge participants who can be intimidated Because the moment you try to criminalize protocol authorship, you’re no longer enforcing law — you’re admitting you’re fighting infrastructure. And infrastructure always wins in the long run.