pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @fourrules 8 Sep \ parent \ on: Murch and Chris have a conversation - What is Going on Here??? bitcoin
There are valid transactions, and invalid ones, and between them there are users and a policy layer, with defaults. That is the case today, and you're advocating removing that layer, pretending it has never existed or had a meaningful impact on the monetary value of the network, when it obviously has because so many other blockchains emerged to service the demand for spam.
I understand the arguments you're making.
I hate spam.
I just don't think that Bitcoiners have a leg to stand on... when the demand/fee for blockspace is so low. If users don't care more about Blockspace... why should the spammers? We lose credibility with half-empty blocks.
reply
I don't agree that we lose credibility at all. I'm comfortable with SoV and allowing the Lindy effect to do it's thing until the incumbents are out of ammunition. This is a war of attrition, but our advantage is that it's possible to go from collectable to SoV to MoE, but you cannot go backwards once you lose the property or collectible and SoV, which they arguably have.
Monetary transactions cannot compete with spam if they are tolerated and facilitated, for the same reason that proof of work must be arbitrary work without any intrinsic value that competes with the core purpose of securing the network. Spam will always pay more in transaction fees than ordinary transactions, because to the sender it's not spam, it's only spam in the eyes of everyone else, so there must be a zero tolerance policy that all content is spam, only monetary transactions are not spam.
Empty blocks with transactions on L2 is a sign of a healthy network at our current stage of evolution.
reply