pull down to refresh

There are a ton of great points in here. Well worth reading.
Now, for my opinions:
I strongly believe that any non-PoW-based method to filter spam, which must rely on subjectivity and "rough social consensus," is doomed to fail. Worse, it has a centralizing effect, mirroring the dynamics of Proof-of-Stake. This "social consensus" filtering is just PoS by another name. We've seen this cat-and-mouse movie too many times, especially during the internet's evolution (see: email, SMS, DNS, social media).
Email is the perfect case study. It demonstrates two things: (a) The cat-and-mouse game of subjective filtering inevitably leads to extreme centralization. (b) Bitcoin is luckier than email because it has a built-in spam-mitigation tool: transaction fees.
The cost-benefit analysis for email spam is that it's nearly costless to send, so a 0.001% success rate is a win. All costs are externalized to the network and its users. The cost-benefit for on-chain JPEGs is the opposite: one must pay a higher fee rate per unit of economic value transferred. This cost is internalized by the "spammer" (with some long-term storage costs borne by the network). Therefore, on-chain JPEG spam is inherently unsustainable. Email spam is.
Furthermore, concerns about short-term consequences or chain "bloat" are sufficiently mitigated by the existing blocksize limit. The worst-case scenario is a linear chain growth of 100-200 GB per year. In the grand scheme, this is perfectly acceptable, as the falling cost of storage continues to follow Moore's Law, making this a manageable and decreasing burden over time.
Ultimately, this all comes down to one thing: PoW is the only objective, incorruptible mechanism for separating signal from noise in the digital realm. Chasing a non-PoW filtering method is like chasing a perpetual motion machine, a utopia that defies physics. PoW is about understanding the world and its constraints through the lens of physics. It's the highest signal of truth because it's literally built on the undisputed currency of the universe: energy. Everything that isn't grounded in this way is a pale imitation. Bitcoin's PoW mechanism is a beautiful, profound emulation of the cosmic process that forges gold from energy (neutron star collision). It connects digital truth to physical reality. To truly appreciate Bitcoin is to appreciate this fundamental connection. It's a special, almost sacred, principle, and I believe it's the one that matters most.
What's ironic is that while we debate, the economic reality I described is already playing out. All past and current attempts at selling on-chain JPEGs have fizzled out or are in the process of doing so as people wise up to their true worth. At this rate, people will spend more time talking about filtering JPEGs than the JPEGs themselves will remain relevant.
Spending time debating JPEGs when the mempool is near empty, fee rates at historical low, and people flocking to paper Bitcoin is an inefficient allocation of time and resources.
Believe in PoW. Let's focus on the real fight: making self-custody safe and accessible for everyone. That means working on things like Miniscript, MuSig2, and FROST, more hardware signers and form factors/UX, and education. We must dispel the myth that self-custody is impossible for the average user. Turning as many people as possible into sovereign individuals. That is the real fight.
102 sats \ 0 replies \ @nymnat 10h
I'll give it ago, probably revealing my ignorance.
The spam-debate is said to be related to PoW. But, PoW has one crucial role, not related to spam (from my perspective). It simply coordinates the longest chain--nothing more. Of course blocks need to be in consensus to be included; so the next mined block is held to consensus by the node runners. A miner-node could submit their "proof of work" on a non-consensus block, but it will not be included.
Next, other protocols are said to have a centralizing effect because of the use of "social consensus". In the case of email, the protocol is decentralized; there are decentralized approaches to dealing with spam, I know people who run their own server without problems. Users choosing a walled-garden such as gmail, and gmail being hostile seems to be one of the bigger problems. I'm not sure where the centralizing effect comes from, likely users choosing walled gardens for connivence (?). If bitcoin had a walled-garden, maybe we could have a spam-free chain! But I am not sure it was the fault of "social consensus". If we had a "social consensus" to reject centralizing forces, we may had better systems/protocols.
I guess the argument is that fees are the spam mitigation (as compared to email which does not have fees). There have mostly always been(?) been >0 sat/vB fees. We have mostly always had spam.
The question is, how do we truly reject any centralizing force? There is a complex set of motivations and incentives. Fiat addiction breeds centralization.
reply
reply
I hardly think the above argument is one of trust. I think he makes a reasonable case for why filters are not an effective solution to the problem of spam.
reply
10 sats \ 16 replies \ @sudonaka 5h
So they aren’t effective enough ….
So they should be removed completely with unknown consequences
It’s intellectual schizophrenia
reply
You and I have probably both heard most of the arguments for and against the removal of filters. Let's see if we can take the conversation somewhere new:
How would you react in the following case:
  • Bitcoin Core decides to leave the datacarriersize default at 80
  • A bunch of new nodes running Libre Relay start showing up, so much so that they account for 20% of Bitcoin nodes.
What do you do?
reply
102 sats \ 14 replies \ @sudonaka 5h
Great I’ll answer:
In that case I would actually entertain the conversation about a policy change proposal. That would be similar to how RBF was implemented, first it was an option, grassroots majority of users enabled it, then it became default.
Core today is doing something completely different- they are forcing a default change WITHOUT that 20% etc enabling it first and justifying the discussion for a change to defaults.

let me ask another question back please: IF (I understand many do not believe it’s the case, then this is a hypothetical…)
IF the core dev team was ever infiltrated by government agents or others looking to harm or sabotage Bitcoin- as I believe we should always be prepared for- what warning signs are you watching for? What kind of behavior or attacks are possible via the core dev team personnel?
reply
102 sats \ 11 replies \ @ek 4h
In that case I would actually entertain the conversation about a policy change proposal. That would be similar to how RBF was implemented, first it was an option, grassroots majority of users enabled it, then it became default.
RBF was easy to enforce because it was more permissive. A majority was not needed.
You want to enforce something that is less permissive. Even if 99.999% of nodes filter, I can just spin up nodes that don't or just submit my tx directly to a miner ...
reply
First of all, I'm not trying to "enforce" anything. You have no clue what will happen in terms of spam after v30 is released, just like none of the supposed geniuses had any clue that taproot or even segwit, which Luke wrote, would eventually open the doors to inscriptions and UTXO bloat.
This might be surprising to you, but I actually don't give much of a fuck about this technical argument at all. The fact is all the supposed metrics that core argues for: UTXO bloat, Mining pool centralization, etc- have all negatively adjusted trajectory over the past few years under the current B-core dev team's watch.
So beyond the technical, I think the core team is failing and most of them should resign. They have terrible communication skills and they do not even appear to be principled bitcoiners at heart. Asking ridiculous questions like "what is spam?" or "is bitcoin money or data?" should disqualify you from contributions immediately.
Many non-technical users like me had no idea how bad it appeared to be before this op_return fiasco. I wish we woke up to this sooner, perhaps before the taproot upgrade, but we are where we are.
What is the way forward?
I think we should have multiple competing implementations that will continue debates like this forever and magnify every single spec of code that is changing in every single release on every single client. "The most viewed piece of software in the world" has a new meaning now. And the LLM tools to empower plebs like me are just in time.
The privilege of the "reference implementation" is over. Nothing will be taken for granted, and you can forget every single "upgrade" to consensus except for absolutely essential bug fixes.
Congratulations, you have successfully achieved de facto ossification.
reply
100 sats \ 9 replies \ @ek 1h
open the doors to [...] UTXO bloat
More people using bitcoin as money would also create UTXO bloat.
So no, it did not "open the doors" to UTXO bloat.
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 5h
Thanks for your answer.
What warning signs are you watching for?
I suppose we should assume that Core is compromised. I don't know what warning signs there would be, but I assume I probably wouldn't notice them (Any obvious attack seems like it would fail). So the safest route is to assume that they aren't on my side.
What kind of behavior or attacks are possible via the core dev team personnel?
They could try to sneak something into the code unnoticed. But this seems unlikely; there are a lot of people watching the repository.
They could try to argue for consensus changes that are unsafe. Maybe try to push through a scripting change that is not fully understood and allows some sort of damaging functionality.
Whatever the case, my response is that I'm not running the latest version until I agree with the arguments/reasons behind it.
In the case of changing the datacarriersize defaults, I agree with the arguments.
reply
Have you changed your personal policy to allow unlimited -datacarriersize? If so why, and if not, why not?
reply
At least no dev has come out and said "I am bitcoin" yet. AFAIK
reply
The believe that spam is less subjectively valuable to the spammer than a monetary transaction is to a Bitcoiner is baseless.
We don't need to force a fee market in order to put a floor under miner revenue.
Spam is like porn, it cannot be defined, but you know it when you see it. It's autistic to believe that everything needs to be deterministic and absolute. Perfect is the enemy of good enough.
reply