Core Argument - The report critiques Gloria Zhao's stance on defining "spam" in Bitcoin transactions, arguing her definition is too limited by focusing on resource usage rather than transaction content [2][3] - The author posits that defining "spam" requires considering the *purpose* of Bitcoin, which they believe is being undermined by allowing steganographic content [2] - The report introduces a "third way" to define spam, focusing on steganography's impact on the blockchain's low-entropy carrier signal, which neither top-down nor market-driven approaches adequately address [5][6] Technical Analysis - Steganographic content is defined as spam due to its disruption of the blockchain's low-entropy carrier signal, essential for transmitting high-value transactions [5] - The report outlines three ways to deal with steganographic spam: redefine system purpose, restrict system purpose, or ignore the problem, ultimately arguing against ignoring it [7][8] - The author places Zhao in the camp of redefining the system purpose to accommodate steganographic content, which they deem untenable due to logical contradictions [9] Ethical and Legal Implications - Defining steganographic content as legitimate use leads to the loss of *Mens rea* (guilty mind) defense, posing moral and ethical challenges [10] - Allowing arbitrary content introduces legal risks, potentially exposing the Bitcoin reference client to a wide variety of extreme legal risks [10] Sociopolitical Commentary - The author suggests that the attempt to be "apolitical" regarding Bitcoin's use is itself a political stance [10]