Money is a representative/token to store & exchange value. There is no such thing as fake money. Anything can be money including cigarette, salt, seashell, rocks, copper, silver, gold and nicely decorated papers. But there are differences between hard money, weak money, easy money and useless money. Bitcoin is the hardest and strongest money, that is neutral, supply that is capped, very expensive to produce, unconfiscatable, unstoppable and transparent. Your fiat is an ant facing the bitcoin Anteater.

I fully support Ocean effort to decentralized mining pool and empowers miners to choose their block template. I would think when we discuss common understanding of censorship in the philosophy of bitcoin, is the effort to stop certain parties from making financial payment/txs based on discriminatory value that in non-financial in nature. Eg: stop txs from my enemies because he is my enemies, stop txs from countries/regime I don't like, stop txs from reaching ppl I don't like etc. This is where the ethos of censorship-resistant came from. I wouldn't like that filtering rules or protocol constraints put in place to protect a system be called "censorship". Normalizing, encouraging or enabling the redefining of the common meaning of words will play into the hands of the enemies. While I will defend the ability of my enemies to utilized the intended usage of the bitcoin protocol as a monetary system for financial txs, I will not defend their effort to abuse and degrade the protocol using exploits for its unintended usage. I use the word "enemies" to illustrate that the worst possible parties should not be censored from using bitcoin as a form of monetary system or financial transactions. Not that those who disagree on these matter is my personal enemies.

It's weird that some think that filtering spam is censorship?

Dear bitcoiners, It's ok if you don't wanna spend your bitcoin. Far be it from me or anyone to tell you have to dispense the value you accumulate from your own effort. But for me: I'm saving them as much as I can, its a representation of my time and energy accumulated. I'm hodling them as a store of value. Whenever I needed something, I'll spend bitcoin to get what I need from any service provider that will accept them. Refusing to use them as payment for those who wanted them for their service is an act of not recognizing bitcoin as money and being unfair by implying others have no rights to exchange their value for real money. You want others to give up their valuable service for that dirty fiat?

Imagine your govt does not print money, thereby they don't need to manage the monetary policy. "Managing" the monetary policy is another word for "manipulating" the monetary policy. Or it's basically a money game. We all know "money game" in the society is basically someone's ponzi scheme designed to scam you. Who are those who played the money games? Well, those without an approved license from the govt. If you have a license from the govt, its a fund, or if your are the central bank, it's fiscal policies. If your govt is not spending time manipulating the money where it always seems benefit them or the cronies unfairly over you, then they will have time to spend on how to increase productivity of the nations and its people. Build you people's skillsets, build their imagination to creatively solve real world problems, build their language skills, encourage their cooperation etc. Then your country will be productive, accumulating values when they exchange their production with others. Then you are truly building wealth. Then you are engaging in nation building.

I no longer invest in bitcoin. I save in bitcoin. One don't invest in money. One don't buy money with money unless you are into money games. Bitcoin is sound money. Bitcoin is the future of money. Bitcoin is the best money. Thus, save in bitcoin.

Thoughts: Does your coin or tokens or currency failed the following: Regardless of sophistication, the underlying premise for hard money: 1. Is it radically neutral? Is the other crypto invented to enrich the creator and early VCs? Did the creator give a tonnes to himself, sell tonnes to VCs for money? Can the creator or a small group of people benefit from Seigniorage effect? BITCOIN is radically neutral. 2. Is it sufficiently decentralized? There are at least 2 important aspect of decentralization. 1. Can the protocol be easily shutdown? Highly decentralized means extremely hard to shut down. 2. Can the economic policy of the protocol be changed easily? This aspect is very important. In the fiat currency and most shitcoins, just a few people can change the economic policies. How small a group of people is sufficient to change the economic policies of the token? Most of the shitcoins can be changed by a small group of people, less than 10% of the participants. Even if 51% of the participants can changed the economic policies, it's pathetic. In BITCOIN, not even 51% of the participants can collude to change the economic policies. Arguable 90% of the network participants is needed for economic consensus to change. 3. Auditability and Supply cap. In BITCOIN, not just we know the supply cap, every sats is auditable and every issuances is predictable and verifiable.