Did you really just give me the, "nothing's happening to me so it must be fine" argument?

What transactions have been censored?

These 8,346 transactions right here.

You’re joking right? Aren’t we talking about Bitcoin and not BIPcoin? All of those transactions have been added to a block and confirmed on the real bitcoin blockchain.

What’s the answer? @JackTheMimic

What’s the answer? @JackTheMimic

The answer is if you don't get into this block but you get into a block a hundred days later, is that still not censorship? If you think so, then putting a rate limiter on a mempool policy is also not censorship. Your inscription will get on the chain eventually. I'm not censoring you.

BIPcoin ≠ Bitcoin. The Bitcoin network is not responsible for any other networks, including BIP, BCH & BSV. If BSV gets 51% attacked, it’s not Bitcoins fault. If BIPcoin can’t find blocks to process BIPcoin transactions, it’s not bitcoins fault. Once the chain split occurred, those transactions are fully separate from Bitcoin for the rest of time. If those transactions were placed before the chainsplit, then all the transactions on the bitcoin side of things would have been cleared in under an hour.

Those 8,346 entries were transactions in two BIP110 minority-fork blocks, not transactions censored by Bitcoin. The count also includes two fork-specific coinbase transactions. I sampled 16 ordinary transactions from those blocks. Fifteen of the exact transactions subsequently confirmed on Bitcoin. For example: * 2c2d…36ab8: BIP110 block 961,632, then Bitcoin block 961,633 * 0fff…3af13: BIP110 block 961,632, then Bitcoin block 961,634 * 0613…b6d1c: BIP110 block 961,633, then Bitcoin block 961,635 * efec…9043: BIP110 block 961,633, then Bitcoin block 961,638 The sixteenth did not confirm because a conflicting transaction spending the same input confirmed instead, which is a double-spend conflict, not censorship. Bitcoin nodes did not reject the Roughnecks transactions. They followed the branch with vastly more accumulated proof of work, making the two Roughnecks blocks stale from Bitcoin’s perspective. Valid, non-conflicting transactions were then mined into subsequent Bitcoin blocks. In fact, the explicit rejection happened in the opposite direction: RDTS nodes deliberately rejected Bitcoin’s non-signalling block 961,632 and followed the low-work BIP110 branch instead. Counting every transaction inside the losing fork’s two blocks as “censored” is simply incorrect.

Brilliantly put!