pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @fourrules 12 Sep \ parent \ on: Peter Wuille post about dropping OP_RETURN limit bitcoin
In law there is a concept of malum in se, and malum prohibitum. Malum prohibitum is the policy layer, where nodes regulate the network, malum in se (bad in itself) is the layer of strict validity.
Because of the basics facts about information theory it's impossible to deterministically ban spam at the validity layer, you have to do it based upon rough consensus at the policy layer, which is how it's been since Satoshi.
Its just an engineers autism that leads people to believe that if things are not deterministic then they are not valid. Perfect is the enemy of good enough.
write
preview
235 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby 12 Sep
if Bitcoin has to rely on "rough consensus at the policy layer" for anything of very much importance, it isn't censorship resistant.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @fourrules 13 Sep
That's not true at all, because censorship requires coordination across many if not all nodes.
Censorship would be selectively inhibiting the transmission of specific messages because of their content.
Inhibiting all messages that carry content in favour of monetary transactions is just the normal and desirable function of the system.
reply