Nostr Web Client

And as I have stated on many other threads on this topic, a consensus has a definition that I am using. If I meant , , or I would have said that.

As for the cost, yes it does. If the only way to propagate spam was to have a sidechannel to a miner that is socially coslty, technically costly, and still block weight costly.

If every peer you connect to rejects your transactions as invalid by not keeping it in their mempool, that make it a time and opportunity cost as well.

This always smack of the little girl throwing fish back into the ocean that washed ashore. She'll never be able to save them all but that's not the point. The ones she did save are grateful. Never tell anyone that doing what they believe has "little point" because it alone doesn't fix the problem. It is the agregate actions of many that do.

sedited 8mo ago

Paying to a fake key or hash cannot be controlled by policy, no matter how aggressive you get. You might say this is expensive, but not by much more than embedding data in fake p2ms (which is controllable by policy). Is there a point to forcing people into the worst class of data embedding in terms of node resource consumption?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

JackTheMimic 8mo ago

Because Bitcoin is not a distributed data storage service. It is a monetary network for monetary transactions. Paying a fake key IS a financial transaction at the end of the day. If I pay a shell company for items that I never receive I still paid it.

Preventing spam is not the point anyway, it is this strange reframing of "We are taking away a config option which gives you more freedom"

This is blatantly false and could only serve to make spam easier to do. That is the contention, nothing else.

I don't care if spam actually increases or decreases. I want people to FREELY choose to enable spam or disable it. Everything else is sophistry.