pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @fourrules 2h \ parent \ on: Gmax's theocratic populist sex prohibition analogy for filters bitcoin
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.
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
Spam is not a thing.
At least we're being honest now.
You could REDUCE "spam" however defined (along with non spam) by eliminating op_return.
You could also reduce the block size, making transactions more expensive.
But without shouting and endless pointless arguments, I think that's pretty much your only options.
Knots and filters won't accomplish dick other than being annoying and helping lukedashjr market ocean pool.
Lol, (just realized) by that criterion filters ARE the spam!
reply
Thanks, we can agree to ignore each other
reply
Spam is not a thing.
At least we're being honest now.
reply
I never really said anything else.
reply
I meant to reply to formules sorry.
reply