> you're arguing in favor of bloating the blockchain with spam just to artificially make it more expensive to use Bitcoin? 

No... no I'm not that is a crazy idea so no. But *even if I wanted to...*
The spammers don't want to pay for blockspace anymore.

The spammers only pay for ordinals/runes/inscriptions when they think someone *will buy them from them...* which they won't anymore so the spammers have left and we are at .1 sat/vbyte.

Even if I thought "spam was good" let's "bloat the chain" who's going to pay for it? Me? Core? Wall Street?

No the spammers have to pay, they did during the last havening they burned >37 BTC and what did it get them?

They left.

028559d218

Have you heard of AI? Nonetheless if fees don't go back up (which they likely will, as they've done before), you're arguing in favor of bloating the blockchain with spam just to artificially make it more expensive to use Bitcoin? Not a great argument. What are the actual arguments against BIP110: spammers gonna spam? Cause that's weak ass.

The article is rather compelling. Until I hear an actually logical argument against BIP101 it's clear to me which way to vote.

bitcoin

Great read... Bitcoin Has a Squatter Problem. BIP 110 Is the Eviction Notice.

williamsantiago

Have you heard of AI? Nonetheless if fees don't go back up (which they likely will, as they've done before), you're arguing in favor of bloating the blockchain with spam just to artificially make it more expensive to use Bitcoin? Not a great argument. What are the actual arguments against BIP110: spammers gonna spam? Cause that's weak ass. 

The article is rather compelling. Until I hear an actually logical argument against BIP101 it's clear to me which way to vote.