Nah, this ain't it. I went in with an open mind but he's straw-manning the anti-inscription folks. Or at least the ones that think like me.

Of course I know points 1, 2, and 3. In fact, I started studying bitcoin more deeply because I was interested in its capability as an immutable, decentralized, and uncensorable data storage system. I even built a testnet system to automatically chunk a file and store it in multiple OP_RETURNs. And yet, despite this I decided that storing data on bitcoin is bad and didn't follow through with my idea. Why?

Because all machines are designed for a purpose. Bitcoin was designed to be a financial transactions network, not a data storage system. If you design a system for a specific purpose, you should make it so that it can't be used for other purposes---especially if said use disrupts the original purpose. Which is happening.

Sure, this might just come down to a disagreement in vision (point 4). Some may see Bitcoin as a more general decentralized data ledger. Fine, if that's what you think. But just understand that there are tradeoffs. And I think scaling up bitcoin as a monetary network is more important to the world than scaling it up for jpegs.

On point 5, i'm not really sure if anyone seriously claimed that inscriptions are a state attack on bitcoin. That would be silly. For all the ESG FUD out there, why would the state attack bitcoin in such a way that increases the mining incentives? The closest claim I can think of is that fiat printed money is fueling the purchase of these silly jpegs.

Overall though, I agree with him that censorship is not the answer. I think over time market forces will drive the inscriptions out because it's a horribly inefficient way to store data. But that's not going to make me stop criticizing inscriptions, or taking what steps I can to fight it.