pull down to refresh

102 sats \ 3 replies \ @SimpleStacker OP 8h \ parent \ on: Review of Jimmy Song v. Peter Todd filters debate (Plan ₿ Lugano) bitcoin
Result: filters always end up being useless in the face of sustained demand.
Yeah, I basically agree with that. That's why I say that filters work in a "narrow sense". You can filter out OFAC sanctioned addresses for example, but not necessarily OFAC sanctioned people, know what I mean?
So you can filter out >83 byte op_returns, but you can't filter out JPEGs
But you do increase the cost. Just, is it worth the collateral damage caused by mempool segmentation, side channels, unreliable fee rate estimation, etc.
write
preview
30 sats \ 2 replies \ @Scoresby 8h
But you do increase the cost.
For how long though? I'd argue that even this increase is ephemeral unless the demand for such transactions is really quite low.
reply
102 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker OP 8h
I guess in the end it doesn't really matter what we believe will happen, what matters more is what we think people should do. I'm personally not too interested in doing anything regarding this debate. I think I have a solid enough grasp of the clash points already. I'm more interested in talking about how people can use bitcoin more in their everyday lives haha
I will say, though, that I think the people spouting off about CSAM are playing a very dangerous game. I think they should stop. @theariard's post today (#1269237) I think makes good points about this.
reply
30 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 8h
well said, sir.
reply