As part of the recent discussion on Bitcoin transaction fees I had a question I had been lurking in my mind to @JayJuanGee Sir, @JayJuanGee tried to explain it logically but it was easier to understand when @mikeywith added something to him.  Hall
 Contrary to what he said in my question, Minara is not a member of a forum that you can maintain contact with or have the option to contact.  We know each other on the forum.  But miners have no chance to communicate with each other.  So how can they systematically stop work and create network congestion?  However, all miners know how they will benefit.  The most important thing is that the miners will mine independently if anyone wants to slow down they will lose.  His reward will be less than others.  If 90 percent of people stop mining, 10 percent won't stop doing it.  In this their profit will be more.  No one will want to harm them.  They will try to perform their tasks quickly and bring the rewards to their account.
 He also said that as long as we don't need the permission or license of a big country such as the United States, Britain or Russia to do mining, the miners will continue the mining activities without disturbing their mining but with the highest importance for profit.

No, you didn't get it. I don't care about how tech works here. I was comparing user experience. Email spam is a serious global issue, same as ordinals in Bitcoin. Email spam if not limited by the email filter would make users' lives miserable. Exactly as ordinals do.


Again, you're comparing technologies, I didn't meant that. What I was trying to say, they have similar effect on the user. And no, there's no need to criminalise anything. It's a system error, a glitch, a bug which needs to be fixed.


I never said that certain users should have priority over the network based on the use-case. You're absolutely right saying that the network was designed so that priority goes to those who pay the highest fees and follow the basic rules, nothing else. The nr.1 rule is that the transaction should be legitimate, it should not be useless spam. Otherwise, the system stops working as it simply wasn't meant for that. Do you know what a ddos is? Ordinals are sort of a ddos on Bitcoin network.

No, it does not. Loving Bitcoin and believing in Bitcoin makes you a Bitcoiner, not sending any satoshis to anyone.

Protocol upgrade or more precisely, a bugfix is not the same as a hardfork.

This sounds like a contradiction, claiming that the no.1 rule of the network is that a transaction should be legitimate, and not spam. The BRC20 and ordinals transactions are legimate, hence they are accepted by the network. They are legitimate because the users making those transactions have signed a signature proving that they own the satoshis they use for the transactions, not much else. The reason why the network has fees was never to stop spam but for spam to have a cost, in order to discourage it. I also don't believe this is a ddos, as the network remains available for users who are willing to pay the correct fee.

This is how the network legitimises transactions, by verifying them. It has nothing to do with whether users are transferring coins between accounts or otherwise. 

No, it does not. Loving Bitcoin and believing in Bitcoin makes you a Bitcoiner, not sending any satoshis to anyone.[/quote]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then! I don't think you need to love or believe in Bitcoin in order to use it. A Bitcoiner, by definition, is simply a Bitcoin user. It has nothing to do with sentiment.