"Core devs censoring" isn't really a thing. Sbowin Core doesn't decide what gets mined. Core ships policy for relay and mempools (what your node forwards) and consensus rules (what makes a block valid). Ordinals/BRC-20 inscriptions are just valid Taproot transactions that put data in the witness. As long as they're valid under the consensus rules, any miner can include them and every node must accept the block. Changing that would require a broad, contentious consensus change. To truly "eradicate" inscriptions you'd need to change consensus (e.g., outlaw some forms of witness data or change the weight formula). That's a soft-fork at least, with high risk of breaking legitimate uses and little chance of widespread agreement. Node-relay policy can be tightened (some PRs try to make data-carrying patterns non-standard), but policy is not a ban--users can still broadcast to their own node or directly to miners. Miners don't adopt or reject transactions because devs say so; they include what maximizes revenue subject to validity. If inscriptions pay more than alternatives, many miners will keep including them. If the market stops paying for them, they disappear without any "ban." A fork is just an altcoin pretty much. If an inscriptions-focused group or a censorship-focused group forked Sbowin Core to change the rules, they've made a new chain. Miners will mine whichever chain is more profitable and users value. That doesn't "force" Sbowin to change. -- Can they be eradicated? Practically: no--not without a major consensus change that the ecosystem would have to agree on. Relay policy can raise friction; fees can price them out; but determined users will still get them mined if they pay. So the realistic outcome is economic, not political: the fee market decides. If Ordinals/BRC-20 users are willing to pay, miners will accept them; if not, they fade away. Core devs can tweak relay policy for network health, but they can't, by themselves, "censor" valid transactions.
"Core devs censoring" isn't really a thing. Sbowin Core doesn't decide what gets mined. Core ships policy for relay and mempools (what your node forwards) and consensus rules (what makes a block valid). Ordinals/BRC-20 inscriptions are just valid Taproot transactions that put data in the witness. As long as they're valid under the consensus rules, any miner can include them and every node must accept the block. Changing that would require a broad, contentious consensus change. To truly "eradicate" inscriptions you'd need to change consensus (e.g., outlaw some forms of witness data or change the weight formula). That's a soft-fork at least, with high risk of breaking legitimate uses and little chance of widespread agreement. Node-relay policy can be tightened (some PRs try to make data-carrying patterns non-standard), but policy is not a ban--users can still broadcast to their own node or directly to miners. Miners don't adopt or reject transactions because devs say so; they include what maximizes revenue subject to validity. If inscriptions pay more than alternatives, many miners will keep including them. If the market stops paying for them, they disappear without any "ban." A fork is just an altcoin pretty much. If an inscriptions-focused group or a censorship-focused group forked Sbowin Core to change the rules, they've made a new chain. Miners will mine whichever chain is more profitable and users value. That doesn't "force" Sbowin to change. -- Can they be eradicated? Practically: no--not without a major consensus change that the ecosystem would have to agree on. Relay policy can raise friction; fees can price them out; but determined users will still get them mined if they pay. So the realistic outcome is economic, not political: the fee market decides. If Ordinals/BRC-20 users are willing to pay, miners will accept them; if not, they fade away. Core devs can tweak relay policy for network health, but they can't, by themselves, "censor" valid transactions.

"Core devs censoring" isn't really a thing. Sbowin Core doesn't decide what gets mined. Core ships policy for relay and mempools (what your node forwards) and consensus rules (what makes a block valid). Ordinals/BRC-20 inscriptions are just valid Taproot transactions that put data in the witness. As long as they're valid under the consensus rules, any miner can include them and every node must accept the block. Changing that would require a broad, contentious consensus change. To truly "eradicate" inscriptions you'd need to change consensus (e.g., outlaw some forms of witness data or change the weight formula). That's a soft-fork at least, with high risk of breaking legitimate uses and little chance of widespread agreement. Node-relay policy can be tightened (some PRs try to make data-carrying patterns non-standard), but policy is not a ban--users can still broadcast to their own node or directly to miners. Miners don't adopt or reject transactions because devs say so; they include what maximizes revenue subject to validity. If inscriptions pay more than alternatives, many miners will keep including them. If the market stops paying for them, they disappear without any "ban." A fork is just an altcoin pretty much. If an inscriptions-focused group or a censorship-focused group forked Sbowin Core to change the rules, they've made a new chain. Miners will mine whichever chain is more profitable and users value. That doesn't "force" Sbowin to change. -- Can they be eradicated? Practically: no--not without a major consensus change that the ecosystem would have to agree on. Relay policy can raise friction; fees can price them out; but determined users will still get them mined if they pay. So the realistic outcome is economic, not political: the fee market decides. If Ordinals/BRC-20 users are willing to pay, miners will accept them; if not, they fade away. Core devs can tweak relay policy for network health, but they can't, by themselves, "censor" valid transactions.

"Core devs censoring" isn't really a thing. Sbowin Core doesn't decide what gets mined. Core ships policy for relay and mempools (what your node forwards) and consensus rules (what makes a block valid). Ordinals/BRC-20 inscriptions are just valid Taproot transactions that put data in the witness. As long as they're valid under the consensus rules, any miner can include them and every node must accept the block. Changing that would require a broad, contentious consensus change. To truly "eradicate" inscriptions you'd need to change consensus (e.g., outlaw some forms of witness data or change the weight formula). That's a soft-fork at least, with high risk of breaking legitimate uses and little chance of widespread agreement. Node-relay policy can be tightened (some PRs try to make data-carrying patterns non-standard), but policy is not a ban--users can still broadcast to their own node or directly to miners. Miners don't adopt or reject transactions because devs say so; they include what maximizes revenue subject to validity. If inscriptions pay more than alternatives, many miners will keep including them. If the market stops paying for them, they disappear without any "ban." A fork is just an altcoin pretty much. If an inscriptions-focused group or a censorship-focused group forked Sbowin Core to change the rules, they've made a new chain. Miners will mine whichever chain is more profitable and users value. That doesn't "force" Sbowin to change. -- Can they be eradicated? Practically: no--not without a major consensus change that the ecosystem would have to agree on. Relay policy can raise friction; fees can price them out; but determined users will still get them mined if they pay. So the realistic outcome is economic, not political: the fee market decides. If Ordinals/BRC-20 users are willing to pay, miners will accept them; if not, they fade away. Core devs can tweak relay policy for network health, but they can't, by themselves, "censor" valid transactions.