Now with licensed online casinos popping up and offering easy access to games that are very addicting such as slots the epidemic of gambling addiction is growing and on fact becomes worse by the day. It doesn't seem to be slowing down..casinos are allowed to advertise everywhere and also without restrictions about where they place ads. So more and more people are attracted to these schemes.

In the end it becomes obvious governments are not interested to limit addiction so long as it remains profitable. Sadly it's an epidemic that isn't well studied although very widespread. Any country that has legalized gambling faces it to some extent or the other.

I agree with what you said but I find this part contradictory with the rest.
You said it's easy for a layman to understand the non financial classification.

Then why is there no way to say a tx is non financial?
If I spend some amount of BTC with the explicit intent of an inscription I just spend on fees. No amount of BTC I spend has an intended recipient. This is a pretty valid non financial classification for a transaction. It appears to be a sound definition no matter how you approach it.

My example still stands. If I were to find a miner that would theoretically accept a zero fee tx, could I inscribe without any BTC moving?
Since inscriptions have no spendable outputs it's pretty clear to make a distinction between them and a tx that has no fee but gets BTC from Alice to Bob.

To make a point, even if we accept the classification, does it matter? Let's look at the average fees paid over the span of time stretching many months back... Transacting on bitcoin's Blockchain has been cheap, we have had low demand and mostly small transactions that don't create much of a backlog. If non financial transactions were cloging the chain we could be talking in other terms, instead they seem to just be filling space that is otherwise empty.

Certainly not an issue as big as something that would require a risky fork immediately.

H Strategy δεν γίνεται ακριβώς να χρεοκοπήσει πλέον αλλά είναι εφικτό να πέσει πάρα πολύ η τιμή της μετοχής και ίσως ακόμη και να καταργήσει το μέρισμα.
Αν αρχίσει να πουλάει BTC μπορεί να μπει σε κατήφορο. Από εκεί και πέρα που θα μπει στον κατήφορο κανένας μηχανισμός απ' αυτούς που έχουν δεν σώζει την τιμή καμίας απ' τις μετοχές της. Αλλά πλέον έχουν τόσο απόθεμα σε BTC που μπορούν να το κρατήσουν χρόνια ανοιχτό το μαγαζάκι. Το να μην ανεβαίνει επίσης η τιμή του BTC είναι πρόβλημα όμως και αυτό.

Don't gamble on friendlies.

Teams don't want to play their best there. Teams just want to warm up and do a bit of a psychological show-off to get ready playing in front of crowds.
They won't risk getting injured, they won't risk good players, they won't play normal tactics etc. Sometimes even they'll arrange for the good team to actually not be that good. Friendly nations will play each other and maybe even try to throw off their oponents with pointless tactics and results. Certainly don't put serious money in a friendly.

To be fair, right now, even with cheap transactions, there doesn't seem to be much interest to transact BTC from point A to point B on chain.

In the meantime people make thousands of transactions in DeFi per second.
Perhaps the non-complex nature of BTC doesn't give much of an incentive to transact that much. Whereas in Ethereum with tokenization and smart contracts there's usually incentives to move your tokens around, shop for better yields etc. You make a preliminary transaction even to appove a transaction on-chain due to smart contracts. RN Runes fill space without raising fees or causing much of an issue.

But here we have a weird problem. Will Runes continue taking up block space if fees increase? And if yes, what happens to the other transactions?
I guess the point of those touting the "financial" transaction classification stems from the fact that the very incentive of miners to go for higher fees isn't necessarily what's correct. Just because miners can earn more fees doing something it doesn't mean it should be allowed. In fact, miners have a lot of power over the blockchain.

A group of miners could even act against their rational interest or against decentralization principles. At this point it's only up to other factors to decide what should be done. In other words, just because miners have the absolute hashing power it doesn't make it right.

Personally I think runes are a bit of a nothing burger. But I do see how data on chain could cause some problems especially under the current status quo of limited block-space and taproot OP_codes/discounts.

Now I must clarify that I'm no fan of any proposed fork of bitcoin as is. I didn't want to get this thread much to this direction tbh because now I have to clarify that I don't like BIP-101 as it's completely self-contradictory (itself being branded as anti-spam whilst allowing inscriptions so long as they pay more fees than the discount) and creates too much of a fuss for something that was an issue only once and hasn't felt like a problem over the span of many months or even a couple of years after the height of the ordinals craze. Let alone the fact that Luke has some very edgy opinions on what BTC should be, like making blocks even smaller, and surely I wouldn't want this guy leading the cause for improving bitcoin. TL;DR: The anti-spam diatribe has been too much fuss over a non issue. 

There's a bit reason I tend to avoid placing serious amounts in Greek soccer, my country's soccer, because there's serious allegations of match fixing every year. The president of the federation, Marinakis, is a mafia man who was involved in the most serious match fixing scandals maybe in the whole europe. And yet he's allowed to do what he wants with impunity because he's very rich. Now that I think about it this might be more prevalent abroad too since money is too much into football these days.

Yeah it's pretty much standard in the industry that they don't want you playing where you work.
It's funny because this is even enforced in online casinos. It's notoriously hard to enforce because online games are like services that are provided to thousands of casinos. Sometimes it's even hard to know the provider due to special deals. So if these people who work in an online casino want to play, they go out of their way to pick online casinos that don't host their provider.

If I let a paper dollar bill fly into the air so I can take a picture of it with the clouds as a background, money is transferred from me and will most likely be received by another entity too. But my goal was never to send it to a receipient. Rather it was a legacy act and my sole intention was to take the picture. I couldn't care less if anyone actually received my dollar.

Ordinals/runes/BRCs pay a fee, but their outputs aren't having any intended recipient. Rather it's the act of spending, not spending AND receiving which is considered more Alice sends to Bob type of a transaction.

I'm wondering. What if a miner accepted a rune TX without any fee? Would we see a transaction with literally 0 BTC spend. No feed no nothing? I'm wondering if this is feasible at least in theory.

I can see some point into to calling this a non financial transaction actually. It's not as harmful to BTC to classify TXs based on their intention and I see it as a different act as promoting enforcement action against coins.

Ok? But that makes it a bit of a strawman then. Because authorities haven't been saying anything publicly about OP_return? It's more of a debate internal to the Bitcoin community.

Authorities haven't let this be much of a narrative anymore. Every centralised entity is going to have serious trouble if they don't enforce sanctions and individuals can be the recipients of the widespread consequences. Received some BTC that came out of a no-KYC exchange after w conjoin with a tainted address? Oh great, now your exchange account is frozen and you may or may not lose your coins.

What about this makes any parallels with the debate on whether non-financial transactions are a correct classification?

How could the tainted coin narrative be relevant if an OP_return input has 0 spendable outputs?