pull down to refresh
435 sats \ 1 reply \ @lightcoin 8h \ on: Review of Jimmy Song v. Peter Todd filters debate (Plan ₿ Lugano) bitcoin
The end conclusion will be more or less the same: it's not possible to prevent arbitrary data onchain. Trying to do so will hurt monetary use cases, and may cause collateral damage to node runners too by pushing arbitrary data publishers to cause various forms of bloat e.g. in unspendable addresses.
The solution, as ever, is to outbid the spammers. Anything else is delusion and cope.
I agree.
We can better account for the costs of certain types of transactions, e.g. use of the UTXO set. But we fundamentally can't stop people from publishing data with Bitcoin. Indeed, the entire reason why Bitcoin works at all is because PoW proves that transactions were widely published, ensuring that double-spends (if they existed) would be seen and rejected.
reply