EDIT
Editas Medicine, Inc. Common Stock
stock NASDAQ

>While it is impossible to fully prevent steganography, limiting data sizes ensures such abuses are non-contiguous
As I said: The counter argument is that the data has to be contiguous to be bad, which I think is a really bad argument.
>As far as Bitcoin is concerned, the data has some meaning other than the spammers' misinterpretation, and any external code to "reassemble" the unintended data is responsible for producing it (it is possible to write code that transforms \*any\* data into any other data - what matters is that Bitcoin has a well-defined meaning that is distinct from the unsupported one)
This to me is just virtue signaling. This field is meant for A. Spammers use it for B. By defining it as a field intended for A, we win? You think 110 succeeded if bitcoin had the same amount of spam going forward but the fields/op's were defined for none spam use?
>Requiring users to divide their files into chunks of at most 256 bytes, raising the cost both in fees and in effort.....
I does not raise the effort on the end user, only the spam protocol developers. I don't think they care. If they did, they would build on a shitcoin, not bitcoin. They also don't care about fees. Some of the protocols produce larger data than it has to. I think the BRC protocol is JSON so it's easier to read, but would take up way less data if it was compressed with a different format.
>sends a clear message that data storage abuses in general are unwelcome rather than sanctioned or supported.
Again. virtue signaling.
>I don't see them saying it'll prevent all spam.
I think they know it's impossible to stop ALL spam. But they're selling 110 as a way to severely limit spam. "Rug the spammers" do you think that's an expression that used to describe spam protocol developers having to spend more time changing their format? They don't care, even the people who hate spam comes up with ways to mitigate the fork restrictions.
\#EDIT#
I was looking for a post by Greg Maxwell (/u/nullc). Could not find it, but a lot of his posts on the subject are quite nice. He's really good at boiling it down and he brings receipts.

\> My biggest challenge is not liquidating too early.
\> EDIT: 505pm stock is 2.44 after hours and I missed all of it.
Your blood line is weak. Pathetic.

>While it is impossible to fully prevent steganography, limiting data sizes ensures such abuses are non-contiguous
As I said: The counter argument is that the data has to be contiguous to be bad, which I think is a really bad argument.
>As far as Bitcoin is concerned, the data has some meaning other than the spammers' misinterpretation, and any external code to "reassemble" the unintended data is responsible for producing it (it is possible to write code that transforms \*any\* data into any other data - what matters is that Bitcoin has a well-defined meaning that is distinct from the unsupported one)
This to me is just virtue signaling. This field is meant for A. Spammers use it for B. By defining it as a field intended for A, we win? You think 110 succeeded if bitcoin had the same amount of spam going forward but the fields/op's were defined for none spam use?
>Requiring users to divide their files into chunks of at most 256 bytes, raising the cost both in fees and in effort.....
I does not raise the effort on the end user, only the spam protocol developers. I don't think they care. If they did, they would build on a shitcoin, not bitcoin. They also don't care about fees. Some of the protocols produce larger data than it has to. I think the BRC protocol is JSON so it's easier to read, but would take up way less data if it was compressed with a different format.
>sends a clear message that data storage abuses in general are unwelcome rather than sanctioned or supported.
Again. virtue signaling.
>I don't see them saying it'll prevent all spam.
I think they know it's impossible to stop ALL spam. But they're selling 110 as a way to severely limit spam. "Rug the spammers" do you think that's an expression that used to describe spam protocol developers having to spend more time changing their format? They don't care, even the people who hate spam comes up with ways to mitigate the fork restrictions.
\#EDIT#
I was looking for a post by Greg Maxwell (/u/nullc). Could not find it, but a lot of his posts on the subject are quite nice. He's really good at boiling it down and he brings receipts.

\> My biggest challenge is not liquidating too early.
\> EDIT: 505pm stock is 2.44 after hours and I missed all of it.
Your blood line is weak. Pathetic.

Hello, u/Useful_Apathy_4951. Whoops! Looks like you tagged me in the wrong subreddit. If you meant to tag a different bot, please **EDIT** this comment, remove my username, and tag the correct bot instead. If you meant to tag me, please make a new comment in the sub where I operate. Thanks!
---
[^(Buy the developer a coffee)](https://kofi.regexr.tech) ^or [^(support this project monthly)](https://patreon.regexr.tech)

EDIT