extreme rightRadical garbage filtering rules Because the belief of these volunteers is very strong - that is, they dislike inscriptions. However, once the Core group joins the 'mild garbage filtering rules' in the Bitcoin client, it may mean that the market share of those' aggressive garbage filtering rules' in the past will be greatly reduced. If you're a bit confused by this, let me give you an analogy - there's a feeling of the official suddenly announcing CP, reducing dimensionality and cracking down on fan pairing CP, that is, the official forcing fans to die. Of course, although Core currently has a market share of over 90%, Core does not consider themselves the "official" side. Because Bitcoin is a user-defined network, users have the ultimate freedom to choose which software to use and implement any policies they wish. Bitcoin Core contributors have no right to enforce these contents, and to avoid suspicion, they even avoid automatic software updates. I personally support updates like Core Group. As the saying goes, if your fence is only 10 centimeters high and others can freely enter and exit, you might as well demolish it to save time. Although I personally have no interest in inscriptions, I don't think they are junk transactions. As long as you pay normally, it's a good transaction. Inscriptions are also paid according to their volume normally, so there is no need to struggle with money, and they bring additional income to miners, which helps Bitcoin maintain strong security even after N halving attempts. And I firmly oppose transaction censorship. Bitcoin's semi official Core takes the lead in discriminating against transactions with normal payment fees, as transaction discrimination will gradually become transaction censorship. One of the most proud attributes of Bitcoin is its security and lack of transaction censorship. Adopting a gentle garbage filtering rule is beneficial for both of these characteristics. Opponents criticize that this is a compromise made by the Core group to miners (considering their income) and abandoning its users. I disagree with the view that users of inscriptions are also users of Bitcoin. With the progress of the times, it is no longer the hardware environment of 2008. If the Bitcoin blockchain in 2025 stores some text and images, it will not be difficult for nodes, and Satoshi Nakamoto himself has engraved the news of that year in the legacy blockchain. Bitcoin will never become a storage chain, but what's the harm in storing some data as a part-time job without cutting into the underlying layers? Real physical gold can be used for carving and recording, and we should also tolerate this in electronic gold. So I strongly support the proposal of the Core group.