pull down to refresh
92 sats \ 2 replies \ @028559d218 8h \ on: What the OP_RETURN saga may teach us bitcoin
these are mempool policies, not spam filters. Even if you decided ok we're "filtering the spam" from now on...
and you said hey "we're fixing the bugs too!" you would need > 90% of nodes with these new 'filters' to keep the inscriptions from getting into blocks.
And at that point the nft people or memecoin people could just... run an older version of bitcoin core (assuming that core changed mempool policy) making "the filters" completely moot. or they could run libre relay. or some other version that was still consensus-valid.
or they could just use mara slipstream and at only 1 sat/vb like in the current environment just pay 1000-2000$ and get literally an entire block with a big picture, a big jpeg occupying the entire block just for themselves.
and 'the filters' would do absolutely nothing. Even running knots you still 'store the jpeg' in disc space and now that the jpeg is 'more rare' or is 'mined by mara and banned by filters'...
Mara gets potentially more business are the prices of the jpegs go up.
it has 'war on drugs' vibes to it and i think that's what some developers want to avoid.
Yes, sure I see your point. There would be something that could be done and something that could not. The point is that polarization is not good for making any decision. I do not know what the right answer is or will be, what I know is that from this sort of climate no good actions would came. First stop the polarization, that is a DS trap, from that all sort of things would came in their own time. If something can be solved or attenuated or even left as it is will be seen when all the quarrel will cease then what can be done will be done.
reply
the solution is fee pressure, time, and the free world's education as to what bitcoin is. with education comes demand, with demand comes fee pressure, and w/ fee pressure little to no space for spam except that which is willing to pay large fees ('subsidies') to miners.
time education and fee pressure to conduct economic activity
reply