Bitcoin developers pave way to the development of Ordinals and BRC20 tokens but they are not the developers of the tokens. It was later seen as a bug but which might intentionally be included by bitcoin developers.
the exploit/bug was a known thing and warned of consequences in 2016 before the activation/opening of the bug(softening of the rules) occurred in 2017**
the result only shown itself in later years when idiots used the exploit to cause headaches
Short of switching to closed-source code (which I hope will never happen), I don't see how such things are meant to be controlled. Anyone can build what they want and there isn't a way to stop them. Bitcoin doesn't have a hierarchy where you ask for permission to do stuff. If someone writes code and then other people run that code, things can happen. Even if other people disagree.
bitcoin does have a hierarchy.. its called CORE.. all proposals have to go through cores vetting, else get REKT
"Added features" is a bit of an improper way to put it. There are no features added, apart from softforks like Segwit and Taproot of course. Ordinals is a concept that makes use of the already existent features.
use of an exploit added 2017
You don't like paying high fees. None of us does. However, it is the nature of the system such that the demand and supply of the block space defines the transaction fees.
wrong. core changed code to miscount bytes and multiply other bytes to change the natural sat/byte space count of space
the fee bumps of fee estimation is also a new things that caused unnatural fee climbs
Censoring a transaction you don't like is a thing that happens in fiat. Not in here.
rules/code are actually there to keep the network clean(or atleast used to)
but even now not everything should be on the network and even core devs knows some tx are not fit for the network
they even use terms like
'dropped', 'un-relayed', 'purged', 'dust-swept', 'orphaned', 'ignored, 'abandoned', 'pruned', 'stripped', 'evicted'
yep even mining pools are not forced to include all transactions (empty blocks)
so stop pretending junk needs to be included because you think its censorship otherwise..
preventing certain junk is actually about having rules to run a clean network
having bad code that doesnt even validate junk and let it pass is insecure and makes the network worse
** (the junk was pre-warned in 2016...)
secondly. legacy(old) nodes wont benefit from it. also old nodes will have more issues to contend with. such as seeing 'funky' transactions. aswell as still not being able to trust unconfirmed transactions due to RBF and CPFP.
..
fifthly, the 4mb weight. is only going to be filled with 1.8mb tx +witness data. leaving 2.2mb unused. but guess what. people will use it by filling it with arbitrary data. such as writing messages, adverts, even writing a book into the blockchain. what should have been done was allow 2mb base thus needing ~3.6mb weight.. and also adding a rule that 'messages' could not be added. thus keeping the blockchain lean and utilised just for transactions and not novels/adverts/messages. afterall if a communication tool like twitter or SMS can limit how much someone writes.. then so should bitcoin.
we will definetly see people purposefully bloating up the blockchain with passages of mobydick or over nonsense. and core have done nothing to stop it but done everything to allow it.
sixthly, as i slightly hinted before. by not limiting sigops, not preventing arbitrary data being added, core have incentivised bloating by discounting it. but have then added the fee's to reduce bitcoins utility of an actual transaction ledger..
this has to be emphasized over and over.. adding bloat is discounted(free) but sending a real transaction is costly
