In sound software engineering, when an exploit poses a risk to the software's primary function, the exploit has to be fixed to sustain and secure the core functionality of the software. In Bitcoin talking about fixing an exploit is censorship and an attack on the free market... 🤷♂️
I checked mempool several times today and almost all of the time, I found mempool filled with garbage data (to scam the people).
If these blocks have been filled with garbage most of the time then why do we need 4MB blocks?
Why are Bitcoiners talking about further upgrades? Instead it would be WISE to talk about reducing the blocksize limit since the free market has been trying to tell us that we don't need 4MB blocks. It's being misused by attackers and spammers.
Reducing the blocksize will probably do following things: -
1) Keep the cost of running nodes very low (hence it helps with decentralization)
2) It promotes scalability in layers (i.e. L2, L3 etc) instead of on chain scaling.
What are the real risks by reducing block size? Except some scammers can't scam the people easily (but I believe that's a good thing)
I think #bitcoin thrives more with conservatism than progressivism.
cc nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk nostr:npub1wnlu28xrq9gv77dkevck6ws4euej4v568rlvn66gf2c428tdrptqq3n3wr nostr:npub1au23c73cpaq2whtazjf6cdrmvam6nkd4lg928nwmgl78374kn29sq9t53j
Discussion
Some people are making money off spam and that's one of the reasons why these same people have been rationalizing spam for no good reason (s).