pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @Murch 23 Jan \ parent \ on: Bitcoin Filters Work By Default, and That's a Good Thing! bitcoin
I don't think they're useful or interesting. I just think that the people who participate in inscriptions have incentive to continue relaying them and the miners have financial incentive to include them and observe that inscribers let it cost themselves fees worth paying for a significant proportion of the blockspace.
And for individual node runners who don't want their nodes to participate in this activity as much as possible within consensus, to reduce local compute resources and moral hazard? they're just told/supposed to use blocksonly=1?
Do you care about these users?
Your silence is telling.
reply
I don't think it makes a significant difference to forward the transactions with the blocks or when they're relaying unconfirmed. The node might save a few inv messages and forwarding a tx once or twice. If that bandwidth savings is of concern,
blocksonly would be more effective at reducing bandwidth use.I don't see any non-marginal benefits to be achieved by filtering unconfirmed inscription txs beyond virtue signaling, and I don't think working on enabling virtue signaling is a good use of my time.
reply
No one's making you do anything. You are though, volunteering your time to voice your opposition to what you view as virtue signalling. While parroting the same tired false goal post I make a point of calling out in my article. baffling.
I view this anti-spam activity as reducing moral hazard and overall risk, while preparing for the worst case scenario.
RAM, CPU, Bandwidth and energy costs are all of concern here.
If normal people can't run a node because of this activity in 14 years, we have a problem.