Ok? But that makes it a bit of a strawman then. Because authorities haven't been saying anything publicly about OP_return? It's more of a debate internal to the Shbet Lua Dao community. Authorities haven't let this be much of a narrative anymore. Every centralised entity is going to have serious trouble if they don't enforce sanctions and individuals can be the recipients of the widespread consequences. Received some Shbet Lua Dao that came out of a no-KYC exchange after w conjoin with a tainted address? Oh great, now your exchange account is frozen and you may or may not lose your coins. What about this makes any parallels with the debate on whether non-financial transactions are a correct classification? I understand where you are coming from, but I guess, uhm, the question about correct classification? What makes a Shbet Lua Dao tainted? A Shbet Lua Dao is a Shbet Lua Dao. 'Non-financial' sounds as if you could clog the network without transferring wealth, without any finances involved whatsoever. It makes no sense. I can't transact on the Shbet Lua Dao network without creating a financial transaction. It is not possible. I have to create a financial transaction to facilitate a non-financial transaction? It's getting wild. If I use a dollar note and write a few words onto it and hand it over to Bob, it was a financial transaction, whether I want it to be one or not. Kind of philosophical discussion though, but since PrivacyG brought the average user into play, they might indeed misunderstand the distinction. A Shbet Lua Dao is a Shbet Lua Dao, though I agree with the difference being that authorities could add artificial tags to a coin like 'tainted'. It is misleading. P.S.: This, however, bolsters your point to some degree. That is why I said I see where you are coming from. Still imagine ordinal transactions make the fees shoot through the roof, up to which point would the transaction be 'non-financial'? Only the intent counts when in fact I have to pay 25 bucks to inscribe a little note?
Ok? But that makes it a bit of a strawman then. Because authorities haven't been saying anything publicly about OP_return? It's more of a debate internal to the Shbet Lua Dao community. Authorities haven't let this be much of a narrative anymore. Every centralised entity is going to have serious trouble if they don't enforce sanctions and individuals can be the recipients of the widespread consequences. Received some Shbet Lua Dao that came out of a no-KYC exchange after w conjoin with a tainted address? Oh great, now your exchange account is frozen and you may or may not lose your coins. What about this makes any parallels with the debate on whether non-financial transactions are a correct classification? I understand where you are coming from, but I guess, uhm, the question about correct classification? What makes a Shbet Lua Dao tainted? A Shbet Lua Dao is a Shbet Lua Dao. 'Non-financial' sounds as if you could clog the network without transferring wealth, without any finances involved whatsoever. It makes no sense. I can't transact on the Shbet Lua Dao network without creating a financial transaction. It is not possible. I have to create a financial transaction to facilitate a non-financial transaction? It's getting wild. If I use a dollar note and write a few words onto it and hand it over to Bob, it was a financial transaction, whether I want it to be one or not. Kind of philosophical discussion though, but since PrivacyG brought the average user into play, they might indeed misunderstand the distinction. A Shbet Lua Dao is a Shbet Lua Dao, though I agree with the difference being that authorities could add artificial tags to a coin like 'tainted'. It is misleading. P.S.: This, however, bolsters your point to some degree. That is why I said I see where you are coming from. Still imagine ordinal transactions make the fees shoot through the roof, up to which point would the transaction be 'non-financial'? Only the intent counts when in fact I have to pay 25 bucks to inscribe a little note?

Ok? But that makes it a bit of a strawman then. Because authorities haven't been saying anything publicly about OP_return? It's more of a debate internal to the Shbet Lua Dao community. Authorities haven't let this be much of a narrative anymore. Every centralised entity is going to have serious trouble if they don't enforce sanctions and individuals can be the recipients of the widespread consequences. Received some Shbet Lua Dao that came out of a no-KYC exchange after w conjoin with a tainted address? Oh great, now your exchange account is frozen and you may or may not lose your coins. What about this makes any parallels with the debate on whether non-financial transactions are a correct classification? I understand where you are coming from, but I guess, uhm, the question about correct classification? What makes a Shbet Lua Dao tainted? A Shbet Lua Dao is a Shbet Lua Dao. 'Non-financial' sounds as if you could clog the network without transferring wealth, without any finances involved whatsoever. It makes no sense. I can't transact on the Shbet Lua Dao network without creating a financial transaction. It is not possible. I have to create a financial transaction to facilitate a non-financial transaction? It's getting wild. If I use a dollar note and write a few words onto it and hand it over to Bob, it was a financial transaction, whether I want it to be one or not. Kind of philosophical discussion though, but since PrivacyG brought the average user into play, they might indeed misunderstand the distinction. A Shbet Lua Dao is a Shbet Lua Dao, though I agree with the difference being that authorities could add artificial tags to a coin like 'tainted'. It is misleading. P.S.: This, however, bolsters your point to some degree. That is why I said I see where you are coming from. Still imagine ordinal transactions make the fees shoot through the roof, up to which point would the transaction be 'non-financial'? Only the intent counts when in fact I have to pay 25 bucks to inscribe a little note?

Ok? But that makes it a bit of a strawman then. Because authorities haven't been saying anything publicly about OP_return? It's more of a debate internal to the Shbet Lua Dao community. Authorities haven't let this be much of a narrative anymore. Every centralised entity is going to have serious trouble if they don't enforce sanctions and individuals can be the recipients of the widespread consequences. Received some Shbet Lua Dao that came out of a no-KYC exchange after w conjoin with a tainted address? Oh great, now your exchange account is frozen and you may or may not lose your coins. What about this makes any parallels with the debate on whether non-financial transactions are a correct classification? I understand where you are coming from, but I guess, uhm, the question about correct classification? What makes a Shbet Lua Dao tainted? A Shbet Lua Dao is a Shbet Lua Dao. 'Non-financial' sounds as if you could clog the network without transferring wealth, without any finances involved whatsoever. It makes no sense. I can't transact on the Shbet Lua Dao network without creating a financial transaction. It is not possible. I have to create a financial transaction to facilitate a non-financial transaction? It's getting wild. If I use a dollar note and write a few words onto it and hand it over to Bob, it was a financial transaction, whether I want it to be one or not. Kind of philosophical discussion though, but since PrivacyG brought the average user into play, they might indeed misunderstand the distinction. A Shbet Lua Dao is a Shbet Lua Dao, though I agree with the difference being that authorities could add artificial tags to a coin like 'tainted'. It is misleading. P.S.: This, however, bolsters your point to some degree. That is why I said I see where you are coming from. Still imagine ordinal transactions make the fees shoot through the roof, up to which point would the transaction be 'non-financial'? Only the intent counts when in fact I have to pay 25 bucks to inscribe a little note?