It shows how stupid you really are, you said about 10 things just now that didn't make any sense.
"If that's really what you believe, we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the case that your way of thinking is in line with "the spirit of bitcoin" or what the average user wants."
This right here means you didn't read any of this thread and your points are invalid. The "Spirt of bitcoin" is not to make censorship on the blockchain. That is what this upgrade does. So thank you for your dumb opinion with no research.
If you read nothing else: You call this censorship. The blockchain already "censors" transactions less than 1 satoshi because they are not expressible by the protocol. Again, why is this significantly different than "censoring" values less than 5430 satoshi? You have chosen to ignore the low value of 5430 satoshi, which makes me believe you feel it's irrelevant, and it's just the principle of it. That's almost an understandable hard-line ideological reason, but then how is even a 1 satoshi minimum acceptable, then? "I want to send 0.1 satoshi, and the client is censoring me by not allowing it!" I'm guessing you weren't campaigning against that some months ago before this change came up. Did you complain when 0-satoshi outputs were made non-standard in similar fashion to this change? That would actually be more literally censorship, since there is no transfer of value, only information. This is the biggest hole I see in an argument that is supposedly only about an ideological offense to censorship. There has never been a Bitcoin network that did
not restrict transaction values in some way. The only argument left is that further restricting is automatically bad, but I don't think that is reasonable and self-consistent. As I pointed out, 1 possible transaction value (zero) has already been removed. Was that censorship less severe just because it was smaller, or was it because it was "censorship" of "speech" (zero value) you also did not support? There could be more possible answers (please give one if you have another), but these seem hypocritical from a hardline purely "free speech" perspective. Similarly I can't think of a consistent reason to support divisibility only down to 10^-8, if you ardently believe that transaction value should be a form of unrestricted speech.
Maybe it was a little garbled; I find some of your posts to be the same way to me. I made the mistake of trying to address several points and it probably got jumbled. I think it shows you are not willing to have any reasoned discussion about this, that you don't even attempt to address any more than one sentence of what I wrote but spend the rest of your post calling me stupid and uninformed. These sorts of tactics will not persuade anyone who might have been sympathetic to your arguments and able to make any difference.
I would agree censorship is against the spirit of bitcoin, but this isn't censorship because it's voluntary. If everyone running a node updates but changes their settings back to a 1-satoshi minimum, nothing will change. If people update and don't care to change defaults, or agree with them, this change will happen. It's like democracy. I'm getting tired of the arguments about "nobody ever changes the defaults, so the defaults are de-facto rules." I agree this is probably quite true, but it's the users' problem for not bothering to understand what the beta software they're running on their system is doing. You should advocate about that issue, not what the defaults are. (And yes, this is a problem with software in general; average computer literacy is nowhere near high enough to effectively do all the stuff that people are trying to do with computers. If you want a payment solution that "just works", I'm sure someone like Apple has such a thing, but you have absolutely no transparency in how it works.)
