pull down to refresh

So there is 'spam' onchain. I agree with that sentiment. And the 'going' rate for a basic transaction is 1 sat/vbyte or 17 cents
Currently there is ~1 block of transactions waiting 'in the mempool' at least above 1 sat/vbyte.
After that 'one block' (keep in mind, this is for all 8 billion people on Planet Earth) the next block is almost all sub 1-sat/vbyte transactions mostly consolidations of op_return 'things'.
Therefore.... ANY transactions at or above 1 sat/vbyte, be they for 5$ or 5 billion $ outbids EVERYTHING else spam included especially all 70 thousand waiting 'transactions' of it.
Here is a sample 'spam' transaction:
There are many like it:
And we can also see that ONE address is spamming these transactions, at really low fee rates by the THOUSANDS at a single time.
For example this address bc1pwhrx8gm0mmwg4fz2jyvma0cf2cjehdgeara9lqqh8j5e4nvedf5sq0gx2t is spamming junk/arbitrary data/op_return transactions by the thousands at a single time.
Why they are repeating the 'uncommon goods' datafield over and over... is beyond me. And as a matter of fact I don't see people talking about it / discussing it enough.
This is what the 'uncommon goods' op_return/token/rune "chart" looks like:
Why would 'any' actor keep paying 'real' money - Bitcoin - in order to pretend that a 'rune' exists and they can 'create' it by spamming the same transaction over and over?
I could understand if the chart for that memecoin was going 'up'... but there is a non-zero cost for spamming an output even at low fee rates and why it is being spammed is a mystery in my opinion that warrants more discussion.

In summary, I read on Twitter that "the filters are broken".
That "core is hostile".
That "jpegs have taken over" etc etc...
And regardless of what you make of these claims... I think they miss the fundamental, rational point to all of this...
Any transaction above 1 sat/vbyte or 17 cents transaction's fee outbids 99% OF THE SPAM...
Therefore "THE SPAM" isn't what's fundamentally broken, WE are.
The economic incentives to USE Bitcoin, to self-custody it, to transfer and ultimately exchange it for goods and services are overwhelming.
Therefore the LACK of demand to actually use Bitcoin, beyond ETFs even if JUST for savings in self custody does far more harm than 99% of the Spam does.
SPAM flourishes in apathy...
It grows with indifference.
And it reproduces as allowed by laziness...
Bitcoiners have to decide if they want to use Bitcoin or not, and then set the example for others.
Blaming others or 'Core' or "the Wizards" or "the taproot people" even Bitcoin Magazine is no excuse.
It's all on-chain, totally transparent, and there's no fooling anyone. The demand to use Bitcoin amongst the 8 billion people should be overwhelming.
Either we, with the knowledge to use Bitcoin, Set the Example or we don't.
So where is everyone?
101 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby 14h
The ultimate filter is the bitcoiners who are using bitcoin and filling blocks with their economically meaningful transactions. Well said.
reply
reply
“Uncommon goods” is for losers. Inscriptions are for losers.
If UTXOs you control are linked to inscriptions, the world knows and knows you are a loser. That is all.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 12h
Bitcoiners have to decide if they want to use Bitcoin or not, and then set the example for others.
Indeed
reply
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @OT 12h
I will outbid these worms if I have to. Truth is that with LN you just don't need to use onchain that much.
reply
Lightning increased the number of people who can use Bitcoin by 100x. However that still means opening Lightning channels, and with 8 billion people, even 1% of which or 80 million using Lightning semi-regularly...
Blocks should be teeming with channel opens. Even .1% that's 8 million using Lightning regularly so blocks should be full from Lightning usage even if it's 100 transactions per one channel open.
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @OT 11h
I guess we don't have enough real bitcoiners yet.
reply
No we don't
reply
Many (most?) people use custodial lightning... so no channel openings, just updates in WoS database.
Does that still qualify as Bitcoin/Lightning?
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @OT 5h
Not in my book
reply
Exactly. So, we're still at very low LN adoption numbers, in your book.
(I do use WoS, Phoenix, Albyhub, coinos, and a few other custodial and non-custodial wallets, depending on my needs... but other than an occasional top up, I never had to open a channel beyond the moment I set up the wallet)
Even .1% that's 8 million using Lightning regularly so blocks should be full from Lightning usage even if it's 100 transactions per one channel open.
So, we're still very far from these numbers... including both "real" and "fake" LN users considerations in the equation.
reply
The data in op_return isn't a problem. The block is the same size, a lower fee is better for all transactions, they have to pay more to put data there, and this doesn't violate any consensus rules. In my opinion, there's no problem here.
reply
Blicks requiring 2 sats/vbyte doesn't mean spam trxs get outbid, it means the spammers will have to increase their bid. Which they will. At what point they will finally be mostly priced out is unknown, but I would bet it's significantly higher than 2 sats/vbyte.
reply
If you watch the mempool/your mempool closely... 2 sats/vbyte prices out the vast majority of spam. And > 2 sats/vbyte 99% of it.
And not only does it get 'outpriced' but it could take days/weeks for the spam to find its way in at .4 sats/vbyte which means it's even more worthless/useless.
If the spammers are going to 'bid up' blockspace... where are they right now?
Influencers some of them are treating this issue unfairly.
reply
deleted by author