pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Scoresby 16 Jan freebie \ parent \ on: Opinion: Spam can't cause high fees - Thriller post bitcoin
I'm not sure I agree with the definition of spam as exogenous data.
If a person encodes some arbitrary data as a signature, it seems like that is clearly exogenous data.
But what if someone uses bitcoin script in a novel way, kinda like BitVM? Is the script exogenous data?
I think the only definition of spam that doesn't bring in subjective value judgments is what I said in the article: transactions that aren't willing to pay the fees.
As to whether there are more or less inscriptions/stamps, I still don't think it's relevant. If bitcoin block space is more valuable to idiots who want to put cat videos there than it is to people who want to use the hardest, most freedom-preserving, censorship resistant money ever invented, we aren't doing a very good job.
I think the only definition of spam that doesn't bring in subjective value judgments is what I said in the article: transactions that aren't willing to pay the fees.
Yea... that's not subjective at all.
/s
But what if someone uses bitcoin script in a novel way, kinda like BitVM? Is the script exogenous data?
Depends on the locking script. Probably.
reply
I think we may be going in circles, but I do think that the economic truth of being able to pay transaction fees or not is about as objective as we are going to get.
If bitcoin fees were paid in fiat, I would agree with you, but they are paid in bitcoin and so, yes, I think the ability to pay them is an objective measure of whether something is spam or not.