I've been trying to figure out how I feel about the recent spam war stuff and maybe I've finally arrived...

I have a serious aversion to "global state/data" and global consensus. I prefer voluntarily-associating patchwork networks who opt to connect with each other and agree on the parts of their data/messages/trust/customs/opinions/laws/etc/etc/"state" that they choose to come to consensus on. The rest of the world be damned. There is no global state - it's all local. (where "local" is the set of peers who share state on whatever thing is in question).

but I also understand that for complex reasons outside the scope of this note, global consensus state is necessary to solve the double-spend problem with untrusted peers. and for a lot of other complex reasons related to human progress, flourishing and economics, you probably want this to include as many peers - friends _and_ enemies - as possible. You want this to be a superset of the aforementioned "local state" peers.

Ideally: you can trade money with your remote enemy peers (global consensus on money) while computing and communicating with your local network of peers (local consensus on state).

So for me, I'm willing to take on "global consensus state" in the most limited capacity possible, since I abhor it so much and the tradeoff has to be really great.

Therefore, I don't want it for anything other than a very narrow definition of money that is compatible with a global peer network of friends and enemies. Anything else beyond that use is, in my view, not necessarily "spam" (in that there's a kind of value judgement baked into the term) - it's just a level of "global consensus state" that exceeds my thresholds.

Slightly more flippantly: If we can figure out how to have local state AND global money, we fix the world.

#core30 #core #knots #op_return #spam #bitcoin