pull down to refresh
60 sats \ 4 replies \ @Scoresby 30 Oct \ parent \ on: Review of Jimmy Song v. Peter Todd filters debate (Plan ₿ Lugano) bitcoin
Sure, but then isn't this also true for filters? It's not so much the filter that matters as who you peer with. Well, no matter that cat and mouse filter game, the people being filtered will always just circumvent via network topology.
Result: filters always end up being useless in the face of sustained demand.
Result: filters always end up being useless in the face of sustained demand.
Yeah, I basically agree with that. That's why I say that filters work in a "narrow sense". You can filter out OFAC sanctioned addresses for example, but not necessarily OFAC sanctioned people, know what I mean?
So you can filter out >83 byte op_returns, but you can't filter out JPEGs
But you do increase the cost. Just, is it worth the collateral damage caused by mempool segmentation, side channels, unreliable fee rate estimation, etc.
reply
reply
I guess in the end it doesn't really matter what we believe will happen, what matters more is what we think people should do. I'm personally not too interested in doing anything regarding this debate. I think I have a solid enough grasp of the clash points already. I'm more interested in talking about how people can use bitcoin more in their everyday lives haha
I will say, though, that I think the people spouting off about CSAM are playing a very dangerous game. I think they should stop. @theariard's post today (#1269237) I think makes good points about this.