pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @fourrules 7h \ parent \ on: Gmax's theocratic populist sex prohibition analogy for filters bitcoin
It is legitimate, in fact desirable, that nodes want to exert control over non-monetary transactions.
It is not legitimate to exert control over monetary transactions, and if filters are a useful tool for sybil attacking the network then they always have been and always will be, and Core's opposition to them is pointless.
The truth is that when targeting the OP_RETURN limit filters can only be effective as a deterrent against non-monetary transactions.
then the filter advocates should be honest and also advocate for eliminating or handicapping op return at consensus level.
but if they were honest they would appear even more ridiculous because people are greedy and don't want to pay more in transaction fees than necessary because of some ideologica or sexual purity test, which fails anyway because you can't block CSAM if the state attacker or whoever has big enough budget.
"CSAM is ok broken up across mamy monetary transactions but not ok in an op_return' yup that's what the knots argument boils down to.
It's only convincing because CSAM is so disgusting that most people's brains shut down when the argument pops up. But it's a transparently retarded argument, to me anyway.
reply
No, consensus is the wrong place to apply filters because you cannot define spam deterministically.
Be honest, do you think you can prevent spam without the policy layer? Or do you just not believe that spam is a thing?
Because if it's the latter then it just means the two camps are going to have to try to shout the loudest and convince enough nodes or Bitcoiners who might run a node that our ideas are better.
We're never going to agree on something that philosophically rooted.
reply
I, at least, am of the opinion that if spam cannot be defined at the consensus layer, then there is no such thing.
At the same time removing the OP_RETURN limit probably isn't worth this fuss. So I'll agree we should just keep it for now.
reply