Thanks for sharing. I am not sure that double-spending, proof-of-work and supply cap have any morality in them. The first two are technical and the third is arbitrary. The supply cap just needs to be there for bitcoin to work and is not really set in stone.
It's difficult for the whole network to agree that something is spam on the spot. Email spam filters work sometime and do not work some other times. You can then define categories for what's spam but that would be your definition of right and wrong. You may change your mind later, people can agree with you or not, people can settle on the exact opposite, etc. A technical definition of "spam" would be easier to incorporate in the network, I reckon.
For changing the supply cap, I reckon that if the door is open for it, it will be determined by whichever group having more control on the network, coins and/or mining power. A more civilised way would be divergent consensus discussions followed by one or more groups forking.
I am not saying this is right or wrong. I can see your point but I hardly think that the network allows for it.
Thanks for the stimulating thought.
