> spam is spam. there's nothing wrong with coordinating among peers to disincentivize it.

The BIP 110 approach is to go down a road of perpetual 51% attacks to root out spam. What make me nervous is that they want Bitcoiners to get used to the idea of "bad" valid transactions. If we go down this road, I have **zero** confidence that we stop with spam.

Scoresby

central authority Bitcoin was built to eliminate.

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.

bitcoin

BIP-110: adding a subjective content layer on top of objective consensus rules

> central authority Bitcoin was built to eliminate.

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.