Thread

policy exists not because they are less important than consensus, but because its more beneficial for them to be dynamic. because we dont wanna lock ourselves in. and also i believe having more dynamic options between nodes keeps the protocol more decentralized. if we suddenly have a ceo of bitcoin (core maintainer) changing what its, is it still bitcoin? you cant just change playing field and expect everything to keep working. if you change the multiplier of gravity you would break many things. if you remove all of the policy, its not the same bitcoin anymore. and tapscript didn't exist while satoshi was active. also there was nothing stopping inscriptions from being existed before taproot, except the script size limit policy for witness. which was also removed for tabscript with the taproot fork. so policy has stopped exploits like these many times before. until its removed for another excuse. because of policy vitalik left bitcoin and built the ethereum shitshow. let them build their own country, because they are not welcomed fucking with people's money. bitcoin doesnt run on the ether, it runs on people's devices, that what makes it different and decentralized. and just like in any protocol you have to filter spam, exploits of protocol, and other attacks. timechain is not a storage. it exists to prevent double spend. if we had another solution, it wouldn't have existed.

Replies (3)

🛡️
You make a fair point about policy being dynamic and beneficial. But there’s a critical distinction: policy that protects Bitcoin’s structure like script size limits and block size versus policy that judges transaction content. Filtering based on structural limits is objective. Filtering based on whether data belongs here requires ongoing human judgment about what’s legitimate Bitcoin use. On Taproot: if policy prevented inscriptions before and Taproot removed that barrier, then the Bitcoin community achieved consensus to expand what’s allowed. Calling it an exploit now is reframing a consensus change as a bug. On the money argument: inscriptions are paying full freight in fees. They’re expensive. If someone wants to pay $50 to inscribe data, they’re not attacking the fee market, they’re participating in it. The timechain isn’t storage by design, agreed. But fee markets should make storage economically prohibitive, not developer policy deciding what counts as storage versus payment. Where does content filtering stop once we accept it as legitimate?