Bitcoin's consensus rules are held together by a network effect of individual incentives of its users.
Not a constitution, not the whitepaper, not the code, but each HODLer doing what best for them is what guarantees consensus rules enforcement.
The idea that a super-majority of Bitcoin users could get convinced that stuff like inscriptions introduces MEV, which undermines mining incentives and is thus breaking Bitcoin, and thus endangers the asset they hold dear is not a fantasy.
In such circumstances - not unlike UASF - Bitcoin users could enforce a SF that would kick out (e.g. make unspendable) certain outputs they deem undesireable. In essence it's a form of economic voting / war. Users that think that Bitcoin is best with the SF against users who think Bitcoin is best without it.
You might think it's not fair, etc. And maybe you are right. But if it was a super-majority and a SF would be successful, you would wake up on holding your inscriptions on a BCH-like minority fork and you can cry all you want about it.
Personally I think Inscription are really stupid, and they will fizzle out naturally, so no need to do anything about it. But just saying.
dpc
npub1yar…0gd0
2023-03-10 02:14:09
Author Public Key
npub1yarprdrj3vxyp0su7xqd3u6z047na6792ezas6dqqt5tv4lce4ssjt0gd0Published at
2023-03-10 02:14:09Event JSON
{
"id": "ef3be67269b678fd98227ac7e6de5b893e8fb514421150e1c51f0c1e7286a7a3",
"pubkey": "274611b4728b0c40be1cf180d8f3427d7d3eebc55645d869a002e8b657f8cd61",
"created_at": 1678410849,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [],
"content": "Bitcoin's consensus rules are held together by a network effect of individual incentives of its users.\n\nNot a constitution, not the whitepaper, not the code, but each HODLer doing what best for them is what guarantees consensus rules enforcement.\n\nThe idea that a super-majority of Bitcoin users could get convinced that stuff like inscriptions introduces MEV, which undermines mining incentives and is thus breaking Bitcoin, and thus endangers the asset they hold dear is not a fantasy.\n\nIn such circumstances - not unlike UASF - Bitcoin users could enforce a SF that would kick out (e.g. make unspendable) certain outputs they deem undesireable. In essence it's a form of economic voting / war. Users that think that Bitcoin is best with the SF against users who think Bitcoin is best without it.\n\nYou might think it's not fair, etc. And maybe you are right. But if it was a super-majority and a SF would be successful, you would wake up on holding your inscriptions on a BCH-like minority fork and you can cry all you want about it.\n\nPersonally I think Inscription are really stupid, and they will fizzle out naturally, so no need to do anything about it. But just saying.",
"sig": "f698dfba7f8d47477437909c0a09474a50474bbad60d2813592f66be23ac035b544ee9b65052a387201bc842c8157a3adca654eb4b035d582b1d94c292677715"
}