pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 11 replies \ @Scoresby OP 12h \ parent \ on: DISCUSS: "If you ever made a sat from spam, you are a bad actor" bitcoin
what do you make of miners who mine spam transactions?
Miners can be bad actors. They don't mine bitcoin so that I will like them. Litter is bad, I don't like people who litter. I have less problem with dog poop because it decomposes and if you enforce the law too heavily people put it in plastic bags and dump it in the bushes, where it won't decompose.
You can't control this kind of bad behaviour at the consensus layer because it lacks nuance and context, so you have a policy layer with one-node-one-vote, where the dominant will of the network emerges and it's incredibly difficult for anyone to sybil attack to enforce any kind of censorship.
Relaying nodes weed the garden, some weeds are allowable.
Helpful concepts are:
- malum in se = bad in itself = murder = consensus invalid
- malum prohibitum= bad by prohibition = pissing in the public square = policy curtailed
reply
Miners can be bad actors.
Bitcoin is predicated on the idea that all miners are bad actors.
so you have a policy layer with one-node-one-vote,
No. If it was one-node-one-vote somebody with a big AWS account could control bitcoin. There is absolutely no voting in bitcoin, nor any voters.
reply
Bitcoin is predicated on the idea that all miners are bad actors.
No it's not, Bitcoin is predicated on the idea that all miners are self-interested.
If it was one-node-one-vote somebody with a big AWS account could control bitcoin. There is absolutely no voting in bitcoin, nor any voters.
You're confusing the consensus layer with the policy layer. There are a number of voting systems in bitcoin above the consensus layer, such as transactions, which are weighted votes in the distribution of bitcoin. Relaying nodes also vote. If it is consensus valid to spam it is consensus valid to filter spam, you cannot say consensus valid behaviour is the only thing that matters unless nodes start filtering their memepools. There is no central authority who can decide what policies are valid, or Indeed whether or not bitcoin has a policy layer.
reply
self-interested = doing everything one can to maximize one's profits. if you find a way to cheat, you do that, too. not doing so would be selfless. therefore, self-interested = assumed bad-actor.
If it is consensus valid to spam it is consensus valid to filter spam
Yes! You are welcome to filter any spam you like. Just like the person who submits a spam transaction and gets it confirmed in a block is welcome to do that. They are both using bitcoin equally.
There is no central authority who can decide what policies are valid, or indeed whether or not bitcoin has a policy layer.
Exactly. This is why I don't care what policies anyone runs. Also, why I don't understand why some people are worked up about what policies are default in Bitcoin Core.
The "policy layer" is just people doing what they want. They can do anything they want. They can relay invalid transactions if they like. I don't care. Nor does the network. What matters is what ends up in blocks. The only way to actually affect what ends up in blocks is to enforce consensus rules. If you don't like the current consensus rules, perhaps you should change them and convince people to run your new rule set. Short of that, it's a waste of everyone's time.
reply
Alternative implementations are attempting to propagate policies that I agree with. Filters are consensus valid. Nobody can tell me not to use filters. People who run knots are self-interested, like miners.
The people who are worked up about things are the people who have infected core that want to mass propagate the idea of having no filters at all, and relying exclusively on the consensus layer.
The policy layer makes it more difficult to put spam on the Blockchain, before the consensus layer is engaged, that is why there is an OP_RETURN limit today. If that were not true then there would not be any effect of increasing it removing the OP_RETURN limit.
You want us to go away, but we are slowing convincing people to engage in the policy layer to ensure that bitcoin is exclusively used as a monetary medium. We are the cat, spammers are the mice, you don't want us to catch mice for some reason. I don't know what you are, but I smell a mouse.
reply
Nobody can tell me not to use filters.
and
want to mass propagate the idea of having no filters at all
do you not see how these are in contradiction with each other?
In your first paragraph you say you can run any policy you like. Yes. this is true.
In your second paragraph you say that you don't like the policies Core is running and you call it an infection.
Why do you get to have policy freedom but people who want to run different policies don't?
reply
There is no contradiction, and that's obvious.
I'll put it into a single sentence so you can understand:
"Nobody can tell me not to use filters, but some people want to mass propagate the idea of having no filters at all".
Of course trying to remove filters unilaterally will provoke a reaction from people who disagree, so I never said the pro-spam crowd would succeed.
reply
Nobody can tell me not to use filters.
^ You like this statement.
Nobody can tell me to use filters
^ You don't like this statement?
When you say "but some people want to mass propagate the idea of having no filters at all" you are telling those people to use filters.
Explain how it is not contradictory to believe your filter policies are only decided by you but also that you don't like the filter policies someone else is running and should tell them to run filters.