pull down to refresh
132 sats \ 18 replies \ @sudonaka 8 Oct \ on: Consensus rules are enough for Bitcoin to succeed or Bitcoin fails bitcoin
Then why did Satoshi enable mempool filters in 2010?
Because they were convenient. Filters are fine for discouraging science experiments, but not as useful for changing consensus.
reply
filters dont change consensus.
we cant change consensus every time there is new spam.
that is why we have filters, so they can be updated often.
removing filters is not a good idea. and you wont secceed any of your goals.
reply
filters dont change consensus
perhaps you should accept consensus then.
we can't change consensus every time there is new spam
thank god: if you could, anyone who got a social movement going against transactions they don't like, would try to make them consensus invalid.
that is why we have filters, so they can be updated often
but they don't change consensus, so what's the point of updating them?
removing filters is not a good idea. and you won't succeed at any of your goals
my goal is censorship resistant money. what is yours? telling people which valid transactions are good and which are bad?
reply
We were telling people which transactions are good and which were bad (non-standard) since 2010 you fool
reply
Other than the current debate, is there another instance of a standardness rule for which there seemed to be sustained demand for transactions violating it?
reply
Have fun with your legal defense explaining why you were pushing CP to other nodes before confirmation.
reply
isn't this also true for ofac sanctioned transactions?
I want a reasonable answer how you propose to create a mechanism that works for CP but doesn't work for OFAC?.
reply
Lmao dude here it is:
The status-quo since 2010.