pull down to refresh

We are somewhat supportive of the removal of the OP_Return limit. It is time to face up to the economic realities and be competitive. We want local mempools to be effective and for the public p2p transaction broadcast system to be the winner. If an attacker or spammer wants to outbid other users, they can and we should embrace that reality. Spam budgets do not last forever and many of the people investing in blockchain images are likely to collectively lose millions of dollars. People will learn hard lessons and then Bitcoin will be stronger from it.
IF YOU PAY FOR THE BLOCKSPACE IT ISNT SPAM
136 sats \ 1 reply \ @quark 7 May
WHAT???!!! CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!! ;) Yes. But I think spam is spam. But if you have to pay for it, it is at least better than free spam. I would prefer to not have any spam though.
reply
😆
reply
IF YOU PAY FOR THE BLOCKSPACE IT ISNT SPAM
+1. The fee pressure benefits bitcoin and eventually exhausts those little paying for it.
It still feels there's something antithetical to the freedom aspect of Bitcoin where the core devs want to remove optionality.
Ayn Rand made the argument that "collectivist" societies tend to suffer because they wrongly assign individuals the responsibility to act for the collective benefit at the expense of their own freedom. This collectivist fallacy ignores the fact that the collective is made up of individuals.
A lot of the arguments for Core's move seem to be, "it needs to be done for good of the network," at the expense of (core) node who will have to give up control.
reply
That’s more a governance issue than classifying what spam is and isn’t. Plus this was brought on by dev tinkering with things trying to make small efficiency gains until someone exploited it for their benefit. So now it appears core is trying to course correct and the freedom Maxis are all upset about it when in reality if you pay the fee your transaction gets mined.
reply