pull down to refresh

I wonder how this will affect potential double spends. One could publish some child porn at the same time of paying for a service and then activate this invalidation mechanism to recover the funds. How many descendants before a block is considered irreversible? Who decides what is considered not to Luke's liking? There will be edge cases that one does not think about now. There are always edge cases.
Putting aside my own position on this debate, this all seems poorly thought out.
Yeah, the potential double-spending issue is interesting. But so is the apparent clumsiness of the proposal - and the path that has lead here. Whatever game theoretic play the spam team is playing it's obviously working.
reply
would you be willing to hazard a guess as to what the goal of a soft fork like this is?
reply
Not really. From my vantage point there seems to be nothing positive in it for the "Knots-side". I think, to hazard a guess one would need to have some understanding of the target audiences here - for which I have none... To me it simply does not make much sense. Perhaps needless to say, I'm impressed by neither the new relaying defaults nor core's ability to make it harder to spam the blockchain.
reply
Although I still do not want to hazard a guess, the question did cause more curiosity to arise. I came to think about the implications of having a system for local filtering what one stores and not having one. IANAL and I do not keep up with legal developments around the world - or at all really -, but the Compuserve case came to mind (think it was Compuserve?). Anyway, the point from that thing was that there seems to be different culpability scenarios depending on if there are attempts to filter, where not attempting to filter seems to be the better choice - on the local level. I'm mostly thinking about filtering what is permanently stored. Changing the rules for everyone to make it harder to publish junk is still a good idea.
reply