> This seems like a terrible outcome.

I agree. I'm not advocating for a permissioned bitcoin. I'm saying what I think is true: relay policy is a (crappy) signaling mechanism. It's a signaling mechanism for things we all don't like (like validation complexity bugs) and it's also a signaling mechanism for things only some of us don't like. Relay policy is good enough that parties with neutral or good intent will take heed of it, while it does not protect us from bad actors much or at all.

Bitcoin is not permissionless all over. Bitcoin is a tyranny of consensus. Consensus defines what is permitted, and only within those dynamic bounds, is it permissionless. If consensus changes, what is permitted changes, but those were the rules of bitcoin's rules all along. So perhaps it's best to avoid saying bitcoin is permissionless without being clear about what we mean.

I suppose that bip 110 is a (pretty crappy) attempt at no 2.

I agree that if we are going to have a concept of standardness, then we probably ought to just make block validation rules match. Of course it's easy to say, probably nigh impossible to do. 

But the bigger problem I see is that it is a permissionless network. If some random other people come up with weird ways to use nonstandard transactions, we find ourselves in a weird position of needing to abandon the neutrality of the protocol. We have to tell the ordinals people "it's permissionless, but you can't do what you are doing." This seems like a terrible outcome.

Scoresby

I agree with him that fee minimums are the main policy node runners have immediate self-interest in enforcing.

I disagree that relay policy is otherwise absolutely useless. It is one of few ways to communicate to neutrally intended parties what the network doesn't like (and miners should be rejecting ... hopefully). imo Policy is relatively useless when compared to consensus, but not absolutely useless.

If we want to remove relay policy entirely, I'd prefer:

bitcoin

AskSN

DISCUSS: "The only policy that makes sense is consensus."

I agree with him that fee minimums are the main policy node runners have immediate self-interest in enforcing.

I disagree that relay policy is otherwise absolutely useless. It is one of few ways to communicate to neutrally intended parties what the network doesn't like (and miners should be rejecting ... hopefully). imo Policy is relatively useless when compared to consensus, but not absolutely useless.

If we want to remove relay policy entirely, I'd prefer:

1. we come up with a better way of establishing/communicating standardness wishes that aren't yet enforced in consensus, or
2. we start enforcing standardness in consensus