Again you’re assuming (1) which is not true. You can have rules for money for which “spending how you want” fits within those rules. Bitcoin has rules but when someone says they can spend it how they want, they are saying it can be spent any way that is consensus valid. You assuming there are no rules for spending how you want is incorrect and not true to the meaning of the statement. You’re making your own definition of his statement and using a proof by definition that doesn’t apply.

If I say “I can spend money how I want” (A) and you say “so money doesn’t have rules” (B), there is no reasonable way to build that logical consequence (A=>B). If you try and prove it by saying (B) implies “money isn’t money without rules” (C), and (C && A) is contradictory by definition of money, something about those series of statements (your argument) is logically inconsistent

Everything you said after your first sentence seems to support my dichotomy

If you can't have money in the first place without rules then you certainly can't have people spending it how they want, because (1) "spending it how you want" means "spending it without rules," (2) without rules it can't exist, and (3) you can't spend something that doesn't exist

Rules create the possibility of money and simultaneously limit how it can be spent

supertestnet

Your false dichotomy is incompatible with logic. Without rules there wouldn’t be a definition of money to spend. When saying people should spend how they want, there’s an implicit assumption that there are rules governing what money is. Dropping all the rules invalidates the axioms on which the statement was made.

netstatic

bitcoin

Luke Dashjr said that Ordinals & BRC20 will no longer exist on Bitcoin.

Cowboy

Because rules stop people from spending how they want

You have to pick: option 1, people can spend how they want. Option 2, there are rules

You can't have both options because they are incompatible