pull down to refresh
5 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 16h
Spam is impossible to keep out of Bitcoin
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @jaspervanderee 17h
Glad to see him taking a stance now as well just like Jeff Booth did recently.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 17h
This is such a tortured way to post a long text. Why do people use X? sheesh
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @nitter 18h bot
https://xcancel.com/adam3us/status/1963830548012372324
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @SimpleStacker 17h
So, I think what he's saying is that miners should be the ones to filter spam, not the protocol developers. He said that miners could be nudged to do that through education/persuasion, or through user behavior, which I didn't fully understand.
reply
40 sats \ 2 replies \ @Lumor 15h
His idea is that users who make transactions start adding an extra output that goes to a 1 of N multisig that is addressed to spam-filtering miners. We bribe pools to filter spam in order for them to collect extra fees from such transactions instead of spam-transactions.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 14h
I think the part I didn't understand is: I didn't know that you can address transactions to specific miners or types of miners
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Lumor 14h
Yeah, I guess each miner/pool who wants these extra fees will have to disclose a public key. Then it's up to users to keep track of who is ellegible to be part of the multisig due to anti-spam compliance.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @dgdhr335 14h
He strives for relevancy but unfortunately his takes are often terrible.
Coasting off a reference in the bible is a good way to make a living I suppose.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Lumor 15h
Neat idea, but this is still fostering a culture of censorship that can then be hijacked by governments to enforce OFAC-compliance etc.
reply