pull down to refresh
50 sats \ 8 replies \ @standardcrypto 25 Sep \ parent \ on: Gmax's theocratic populist sex prohibition analogy for filters bitcoin
then the filter advocates should be honest and also advocate for eliminating or handicapping op return at consensus level.
but if they were honest they would appear even more ridiculous because people are greedy and don't want to pay more in transaction fees than necessary because of some ideologica or sexual purity test, which fails anyway because you can't block CSAM if the state attacker or whoever has big enough budget.
"CSAM is ok broken up across mamy monetary transactions but not ok in an op_return' yup that's what the knots argument boils down to.
It's only convincing because CSAM is so disgusting that most people's brains shut down when the argument pops up. But it's a transparently retarded argument, to me anyway.
No, consensus is the wrong place to apply filters because you cannot define spam deterministically.
Be honest, do you think you can prevent spam without the policy layer? Or do you just not believe that spam is a thing?
Because if it's the latter then it just means the two camps are going to have to try to shout the loudest and convince enough nodes or Bitcoiners who might run a node that our ideas are better.
We're never going to agree on something that philosophically rooted.
reply
I, at least, am of the opinion that if spam cannot be defined at the consensus layer, then there is no such thing.
At the same time removing the OP_RETURN limit probably isn't worth this fuss. So I'll agree we should just keep it for now.
reply
What's the difference between "8&"8-_-8_8-68" and the word "contumacious"?
reply
Spam is not a thing.
At least we're being honest now.
You could REDUCE "spam" however defined (along with non spam) by eliminating op_return.
You could also reduce the block size, making transactions more expensive.
But without shouting and endless pointless arguments, I think that's pretty much your only options.
Knots and filters won't accomplish dick other than being annoying and helping lukedashjr market ocean pool.
Lol, (just realized) by that criterion filters ARE the spam!
reply
Thanks, we can agree to ignore each other
reply
Spam is not a thing.
At least we're being honest now.
reply
I never really said anything else.
reply
I meant to reply to formules sorry.
reply