TIL: There's sophisticated access control for cats 🤯 Cat doors can detect the chip modern cats carry and even detect if the cat is carrying a mouse!

Funny. @ꓘɨℓσꬺƄɨP110ꓘɳσ[Ŧƨ] 𓅦丰 saw me debating @Unhosted Marcellus on Xitter and replied this:

Looks about right.

Some claim: "L2s and scaling are irrelevant, Bitcoin on‑chain is dead because blocks hold pictures." But inscriptions aren’t real usage. If storing data was needed, “rock‑pictures” would flood the chain when fees are low. They surge only when they can disrupt. These attacks aren’t free. They redirect funds to miners — just as Satoshi designed: spam gets priced out by fees. The problem is the user experience: normal transactions get priced out temporarily. That calls not for censorship, but smoothing tools. Covenants (like BIP‑119/CTV) enable post‑payment: commit to a future tx cheaply, expand later when space allows. But we also need pre‑payment for average users: lock in blockspace in advance at a known fee, with no nasty surprises. That’s the real “fix”: steer demand with covenants + prepay markets, not censorship. Make blockspace allocation predictable so attackers must sustain costly spam. Let users lock in confirmations. That fulfills Satoshi’s promise: fees themselves protect Bitcoin. A true fix for fee shocks that could work today? A blockspace futures market. Users could pre‑pay for tx inclusion at a known rate. In a liquid market, margins would be razor thin - just enough to smooth congestion. Think of it as buying “fee insurance” ahead of time. This doesn’t need to live on L1. It could run on layer‑2 rails - e.g. contracts with RGB on Lightning. Wallets could bundle prepaid tx packages and execute them automatically when you hit “send”. With futures + post‑payment covenants, users gain predictability, attackers face rising costs, and miners still earn. That’s neutrality preserved: an open market allocates blockspace smoothly, without gatekeepers deciding which transaction is “spam”.