Wrong. Suggest reading the whole post, but I pulled out the relevant part to your opinion.

nevent1qqs9glszh26df9cdhlm6w94rswczfwsnw9lx3zkv9v9sqc8z4yxaf6spupmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhj2v3swaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxumm5daeks6fwwa5kute9xgc8wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9ujnyvrhwden5te0wfjkccte9eekjctdwd68ytnrdakj7ffjxpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuvrcvd5xzapwvdhk6te9xgc8wumn8ghj7mnxwfjkccte9eshqup0y5erqamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7tjwvhxumm5daeks6fwwa5kute9xgc8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnwv4u8getj0ghxxmmd9ujnyvrhwden5te0vejkuunfwgkhxtnwda6x7umgdyh8w6twp2effm

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I've read that post and I know about the block reconstruction, but that doesn't address my argument about bandwidth. If everyone is running filters then nodes and miners will never see certain transactions to cache them.

Good. Then they don’t need to be seen and can just be dropped.

Until a big miner mines them...

Fair game. The problem is that the big miner would probably be a big pool that unilaterally decides what goes into blocks without respecting what the hash rate providers or node runers might want. And that’s a whole other can of worms. Hopefully FPPS will be getting less and less relevant in the future and the mining centralisation will be fixed to a good extent.

That's okay. Some wounds leave scars that we carry forever; they're part of our lives, and we must embrace them and carry on.