101 sats \ 14 replies \ @Murch 23 Jan \ on: Bitcoin Filters Work By Default, and That's a Good Thing! bitcoin
You are misrepresenting the position of your discussion opponents. Their position is that "establishing a new filter for something that has an established valuable market is unlikely to succeed" rather than "established filters are not effective".
reply
There are people that want to send inscriptions and are paying dozens of bitcoins in fees to people that mine them. Given their incentives, do you think that at least one person from these two camps might manage to come up with the obvious idea of simply not turning on the filters on their own nodes?
reply
It's called scamming or money laundering. It could even be an attack similar to empty blocks, just flooding the chain with spam/useless tx.
Btw, what in the whitepaper and network design makes you think this is a valid use case? And before you start with muh free market: Bitcoin is not a free market, never has been.
From my perspective, they are misrepresenting our position, and are gaslighting either intentionally or unintentionally here. They define "success" as 100% non inclusion in all blocks for all time into the future. That is their high bar for "success", and apparently yours too?
I define success as enabling compute resource savings and non participation by my, and my peers nodes who want to participate in such precise filtering, in as much as non participation can be done within consensus. ie via policy.
You and the grfiters you carry water for don't get an entirely free ride on my nodes resources. And you shouldn't get one on my peers resources who feel the same.
I think your and others framing of this had been, quite frankly, disappointing.
reply
the lack of response to this is telling.