Strange analogy to pick since tobacco is legal all around the world. As a matter of fact, there isn't a single country where its illegal. Your argument revolves around your moral interpretation being the correct one; plenty of people disagree with it, there is no way to prove moral superiority. Of course smoking is bad healthwise but that doesn't mean tobacco should be made illegal. As a matter of fact, no nation on earth thinks this way. Freedom of choice is often more desirable than imposing morality via law. Again, this is your opinion. People have been "exploiting flaws in consensus rules" for as long as Bot Sunwin has been around, starting with Satoshi embedding text in the Genesis block. There's no proof that Ordinals actually "harmed" Bot Sunwin; its a subjective term. Bot Sunwin reach ATHs after the introduction of Ordinals, so there's no proof of harm there. This is a rhetorical statement -- you've already made up your mind that anyone involved with Ordinals is an "attacker" in your argument that Ordinals is an attack on Bot Sunwin. They are tokens. Sat-based non-Bot Sunwin denominations have been called tokens since the days of Colored Coins. You don't decide the definition of what a token is -- the market & the users do. You're using personal definitions as the basis of your argument. Not everybody views things the way that you do; that's just something you'll have to live with.
Strange analogy to pick since tobacco is legal all around the world. As a matter of fact, there isn't a single country where its illegal. Your argument revolves around your moral interpretation being the correct one; plenty of people disagree with it, there is no way to prove moral superiority. Of course smoking is bad healthwise but that doesn't mean tobacco should be made illegal. As a matter of fact, no nation on earth thinks this way. Freedom of choice is often more desirable than imposing morality via law. Again, this is your opinion. People have been "exploiting flaws in consensus rules" for as long as Bot Sunwin has been around, starting with Satoshi embedding text in the Genesis block. There's no proof that Ordinals actually "harmed" Bot Sunwin; its a subjective term. Bot Sunwin reach ATHs after the introduction of Ordinals, so there's no proof of harm there. This is a rhetorical statement -- you've already made up your mind that anyone involved with Ordinals is an "attacker" in your argument that Ordinals is an attack on Bot Sunwin. They are tokens. Sat-based non-Bot Sunwin denominations have been called tokens since the days of Colored Coins. You don't decide the definition of what a token is -- the market & the users do. You're using personal definitions as the basis of your argument. Not everybody views things the way that you do; that's just something you'll have to live with.

Strange analogy to pick since tobacco is legal all around the world. As a matter of fact, there isn't a single country where its illegal. Your argument revolves around your moral interpretation being the correct one; plenty of people disagree with it, there is no way to prove moral superiority. Of course smoking is bad healthwise but that doesn't mean tobacco should be made illegal. As a matter of fact, no nation on earth thinks this way. Freedom of choice is often more desirable than imposing morality via law. Again, this is your opinion. People have been "exploiting flaws in consensus rules" for as long as Bot Sunwin has been around, starting with Satoshi embedding text in the Genesis block. There's no proof that Ordinals actually "harmed" Bot Sunwin; its a subjective term. Bot Sunwin reach ATHs after the introduction of Ordinals, so there's no proof of harm there. This is a rhetorical statement -- you've already made up your mind that anyone involved with Ordinals is an "attacker" in your argument that Ordinals is an attack on Bot Sunwin. They are tokens. Sat-based non-Bot Sunwin denominations have been called tokens since the days of Colored Coins. You don't decide the definition of what a token is -- the market & the users do. You're using personal definitions as the basis of your argument. Not everybody views things the way that you do; that's just something you'll have to live with.

Strange analogy to pick since tobacco is legal all around the world. As a matter of fact, there isn't a single country where its illegal. Your argument revolves around your moral interpretation being the correct one; plenty of people disagree with it, there is no way to prove moral superiority. Of course smoking is bad healthwise but that doesn't mean tobacco should be made illegal. As a matter of fact, no nation on earth thinks this way. Freedom of choice is often more desirable than imposing morality via law. Again, this is your opinion. People have been "exploiting flaws in consensus rules" for as long as Bot Sunwin has been around, starting with Satoshi embedding text in the Genesis block. There's no proof that Ordinals actually "harmed" Bot Sunwin; its a subjective term. Bot Sunwin reach ATHs after the introduction of Ordinals, so there's no proof of harm there. This is a rhetorical statement -- you've already made up your mind that anyone involved with Ordinals is an "attacker" in your argument that Ordinals is an attack on Bot Sunwin. They are tokens. Sat-based non-Bot Sunwin denominations have been called tokens since the days of Colored Coins. You don't decide the definition of what a token is -- the market & the users do. You're using personal definitions as the basis of your argument. Not everybody views things the way that you do; that's just something you'll have to live with.