pull down to refresh
102 sats \ 5 replies \ @fourrules 21 Sep \ parent \ on: DISCUSS: "If you ever made a sat from spam, you are a bad actor" bitcoin
Defining spam at consensus layer is impossible, involves too many negative trade offs and would likely ultimately fail.
Policy layer is more appropriate. Advocate your spam standards and propagate that desire around the open internet as evaluative judgements, let other node runners decide if they want to adopt those filters and standards, collaborative filtering sets the culture, coordinated action to maintain Blockchain hygiene.
This is just as consensus valid as spam, so why are you more offended by collaborative filtering than by spam?
I'm not offended by any filter. Everyone should run whatever kind of policy they want. If you like running Knots or Libre Relay that's great!
What I'm not understanding is why you (or anyone) thinks filters will really make a difference.
Bitcoin is clearly designed to allow users to get consensus valid transactions confirmed...even if other people don't want those transactions confirmed. I'd even say that is the whole point of the project.
If that can be broken by filters, then what are we even doing here?
reply
Bitcoin isn't broken by filters. Filters are part of the maintenance of bitcoin as a censorship resistant monetary media. Spam is a misuse and abuse of the protocol, hence filters and other techniques are deployed to weed the garden.
This has always been the case, maybe you just don't understand the difference between a monetary medium and a general purpose distributed database.
The market for a general purpose distributed database is way lower than a monetary medium, but if abused and treated as a censorship resistant distributed database (like this season's shitcoin) then bitcoin becomes less useful as a monetary medium (because transaction fees increase and the memepool is polluted by shit that node runners don't want to relay). Less relaying nodes policing the network means number-not-go-up.
Obviously that is true because other blockchains have tried to be distributed databases and they always devalue against bitcoin.
Bitcoin's value is in part derived from its capacity to control spam, which in no way impacts it's censorship resistance.
reply
Perhaps this is where our true disagreement is:
I think bitcoin can only be a useful money if it is censorship resistant. All other value in bitcoin comes from this.
Censorship resistant means (in part) anyone can get a valid transaction confirmed even if (especially if) others don't want them to.
Filters have nothing to do with censorship resistance. Run them or don't. But if you believe they can prevent valid transactions from getting confirmed, then whatever money bitcoin is, doesn't have much value in my opinion.
(Luckily, I think filters are fairly ineffective and weak, so I'm still hopeful for btc as money.)
Also: who took the jelly out of your donut?
reply
Jelly is spam, donuts were never meant to have jelly!
reply
(i agree with you on the jelly in the donuts)
reply