Nice re-framing of the argument, trying to pass it off as "censorship" when it is really you exploiting a resource because you have the ability, not the actual right to do so.
Could you please elaborate on what this statement is based?
I think your premise is flawed and using the phrasings "exploiting" and "no right to" is blatantly rude in my opinion. This is similar to "I don't like TraderTimm spending some coins and therefore I claim it's abuse of the blockchain and he has no right to do so".
(snipped)
I don't expect anything I say to change MSC's course. The development of MSC has reached a point where refactoring is viewed as untenable, to say the least. I'm just standing on the beach, as the hurricane of ill-conceived intentions blusters ashore, hoping that this forum server and google-indexed searches will show the markers of where things went wrong at the beginning. A lighthouse perched on the edge of the cliffs of greed, warning those that contemplate taking the same course.
My statement about exploitation is based on this:
MSC is equivalent to someone discovering that a particular email client can be used to forward unsolicited email from a user's ISP to anyone else, using a specially crafted email. Sure, they could filter out your "trigger" messages that allow them to do so, but you are the one exploiting them and tasking them with the burden of correcting your abuse.
The rest is just semantics. The ethics behind deciding to throw this load on to the backs of the miners is the problem. I don't give a toss if they can filter it out -
THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BE FORCED TO CORRECT YOUR DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS OF A SHARED RESOURCE.This, simply, is wrong.