pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 10h \ parent \ on: Non-Standard OP_RETURN transaction Data bitcoin
That's a helpful metaphor. I only have questions (which is why I think some folks prefer the technical arguments).
How many of them are good (or ambiguous, e.g. OpenTimestamps) guys/txs doing harm because there's no easier/cheaper way, and how many of them are bad guys/txs doing harm because that's what they do? The quantity of each seems relevant because, at least from a utilitarian POV, we're concerned about net harm. There's no clear answer though.
Hypothetically, if we knew it meant less net harm to the network, is it worth conceding to the bad guys? If we don't know, is it worth it? What's the best way one can prove there might be less or more net harm?
I'm beginning to think McElrath has a point: it's a dilemma. That is, ignoring the technical arguments, it's bad either way.
The answer to almost all of these if we're answering honestly is that we don't know. We have no idea because Bitcoin is not a centralized system and that's a good thing. We want people to make decisions based on their own values and profit calculations, and not on centralized dictates.
We have incentive guidelines based on economics. We know lowering the price means more people buy. We know that friction and bad user experience prevent people from adoption. But ultimately, playing with incentives to try to get a particular result is technocratic hubris. Particularly for the reason you point out. We really don't know what the second and third order effects will be. This is the main failure of central planning.
That said, I think the way to solve this is more decentralization. We should be encouraging nodes to be more self-sovereign and decide for themselves what they relay and encourage hashers to decide for themselves what they mine. Power to the people, I say.
reply