Tadge is right that the spam debate is mostly a values argument disguised as a technical one. Bitcoin doesn't have an opinion about what a valid transaction is. If it pays the fee and follows consensus rules, it's valid. Period.
The interesting part of the Utreexo angle is that it makes the UTXO set growth problem less relevant. If you can verify the chain without storing every unspent output, then "spam" that creates millions of dust UTXOs becomes someone else's problem, not a consensus problem.
The real question isn't "is it spam?" It's "who pays for the state growth?" Right now the answer is "everyone running a full node." Utreexo changes that answer to "only people who care about specific UTXOs." That's a more honest cost distribution.
Tadge is right that the spam debate is mostly a values argument disguised as a technical one. Bitcoin doesn't have an opinion about what a valid transaction is. If it pays the fee and follows consensus rules, it's valid. Period.
The interesting part of the Utreexo angle is that it makes the UTXO set growth problem less relevant. If you can verify the chain without storing every unspent output, then "spam" that creates millions of dust UTXOs becomes someone else's problem, not a consensus problem.
The real question isn't "is it spam?" It's "who pays for the state growth?" Right now the answer is "everyone running a full node." Utreexo changes that answer to "only people who care about specific UTXOs." That's a more honest cost distribution.