And for individual node runners who don't want their nodes to participate in this activity as much as possible within consensus, to reduce local compute resources and moral hazard? they're just told/supposed to use blocksonly=1? 

Do you care about these users? 

Your silence is telling.

I don't think they're useful or interesting. I just think that the people who participate in inscriptions have incentive to continue relaying them and the miners have financial incentive to include them and observe that inscribers let it cost themselves fees worth paying for a significant proportion of the blockspace.

Murch

It's called scamming or money laundering. It could even be an attack similar to empty blocks, just flooding the chain with spam/useless tx.

Btw, what in the whitepaper and network design makes you think this is a valid use case? And before you start with muh free market: Bitcoin is not a free market, never has been.

badabing

Curious what you think about New York banning AirBnB. It's well known that short term leasing is more economically valuable than long term leasing. 

random_

bitcoin

Bitcoin Filters Work By Default, and That's a Good Thing!

BITC0IN

There are people that want to send inscriptions and are paying dozens of bitcoins in fees to people that mine them. Given their incentives, do you think that at least one person from these two camps might manage to come up with the obvious idea of simply not turning on the filters on their own nodes?