I don't agree with all the stuff Vortex says nor the way it is said, but this is a solid expression of why I disagree with bip 110 and the approach taken by the anti-spam side in general:
Consensus rules validate transaction structure and cryptographic correctness not content and that's not a "filter", that's protocol enforcement.
See there's a massive difference between "does this tx follow the rules" and "do I like what's in this tx."
A valid transaction that pays market-rate fees IS using Bitcoin as designed as the fee market is the spam filter so if someone pays to put data in a valid transaction, by what objective standard are you calling it spam?
"Not required for integrity" is subjective, the consensus rules already define what's required and if the tx passes them, it passed.
Again what you're actually proposing is adding a subjective content layer on top of objective consensus rules and again that's not maintaining Bitcoin that's changing its neutrality model.
Vortex ends with this, which strongly resonates:
And the moment you let someone decide which valid transactions are "spam" you've introduced the exact central authority Bitcoin was built to eliminate.
I think this wouldn't have happened if the changes in core were not pushed so agressively.
Agreed. But then again, the opposing side also turned their stance surprisingly quickly into a hill-to-die-on mode.
Vocal parties on either side acted like monumental dickheads (still are? Haven't been following the soap opera in a while.)
And I don't care who was the first dickhead.
It is strange that this became a thing that everybody is willing to make a stand on.
I think it comes down to each side feeling there is a threat to an essential aspect of bitcoin: the BIP 110 side sees spam as a threat to node runners, the Core side sees overly strong spam mitigation efforts as a threat to Bitcoin's incentive structure (hmm, that isn't quite right when I say it: what I mean is Bitcoin's" game theory" but that phrase gets used so widely as to be almost without meaning).
What's done is done.
https://twiiit.com/theonevortex/status/2021040410043482283
The tension here is real, but I think it's a false dichotomy. You don't need to modify consensus rules to address spam — you can build subjective filtering at the application layer, where it belongs.
This is exactly what Web of Trust scoring does on Nostr right now. No protocol changes needed. Each node/client/relay can independently choose to weight connections by trust scores derived from the social graph (PageRank, Sybil detection, etc). Valid messages still propagate — they just get ranked differently depending on who you trust.
The key distinction: consensus-layer filtering = central authority deciding what's valid. Application-layer trust scoring = each participant making their own subjective assessment. The first changes Bitcoin's neutrality model. The second is just users exercising judgment, which they've always done.
The fee market IS a spam filter for Bitcoin L1, and it works. For higher layers and protocols where fees don't create sufficient friction, decentralized trust scoring fills the gap without anyone having veto power over valid data.
appeal to emotion.
spam is spam. there's nothing wrong with coordinating among peers to disincentivize it.
this sort of shit is the result of the stupid block size wars where somebody wanted to make money quickly, and needed centralizing changes. compromises were made, after the "industry" pushed for 4mb blocks, and we wound up with 2mb blocks.