It's not about whether it's "in their right" or not. The content of the chain is not arbitrary or something that is divine as long as its natural and pays a fee. Ultimately this is software and an open, adversarial network that needs to be robust. DoS and spam are the ultimate issue of all open networks.
If someone figured out a way to make 1,000,000 unspendable UTXOs in a single transaction or just a handful of blocks are were happily willing to pay those fees while creating a huge, immediate jump in the amount of RAM every node had to have to stay in sync, despite not a single one of them having any monetary use or relation whatsoever, would you consider that "valid" and perfectly fine? If you did, then I would argue that you and I disagree on both the purpose and engineering concerns of the network.
Bitcoin is like a giant, trustless clock, that has no alternative. To stamp a bunch of bullshit images and shitcoins into it is like grabbing a precious time keeping device and using it to hammer a nail. Its dumb, doesn't even work very well, and is directly at odds with why the device is so valuable in the first place. This is *not* about who is willing to pay a fee, this is about the purpose of the network and whether the bloat of data is at odds with the very fundamental value that #Bitcoin provides. This is about the tragedy of the commons putting costs on those who maintain the network, by people who don't even give a shit about the value that the network provides.
Second, yes we should be making that judgement as engineers, just as everyone who worked on it has always done, or the system literally could never have worked. It’s not a judgement of “which transactions should be allowed or which people should have access,” which is the principle you seem to *want* to apply, but doesn’t. It’s about what *kind of data* is allowed, which cannot be avoided.
Again, you seem to be sacrificing the extremely unambiguous concerns of security and design of an engineered, open protocol & network, for abstract libertarian principles that cannot apply unless the system works in the first place.
You are falsely equating the conversation with censorship or specific ideas or specific people, when that isn’t what it is, anymore than the blocksize is a “censorship” of all the people who want to use Bitcoin but can’t fit their transactions in.
There are engineering realities that we can’t hand wave away with moral declarations.
Showing page 1 of
1 pages
