Nostr Web Client

Guy, it's like asking "I can't believe how any smart people could think that cops can stop all crime!"

That's not the claim. It's that filters enable your miner to select transactions YOU want to include. That is literally it. And by the same logic "if everyone followed the law, there would be no crime" is the same as the filter contention. But if MOST people filtered there would be LESS spam because of the sheer popularity of filtering. It's not a mandate, it's a consensus. Right now there is no dominant consensus.

I hope this helped you understand.

Elephant in the root 8mo ago 💬 1

The comparison doesn't work because there are significant negative consequences to the person doing the crime if he gets caught while there are practically not significant negative consequences from having arbitrary data caught as such.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

JackTheMimic 8mo ago 💬 1

Ah, so you don't see centralization of a financial network as a problem? But like so many of these analogies they are not 1 to 1 comparisons or else I would just state the situation at hand instead of contriving a similar situation to illustrate a point in more understandable terms.

"Apples are sweet and delicious"

"That's like saying oranges are sweet and delicious"

You: No, it's not because oranges have a different nutrition profile from apples.

Elephant in the root 8mo ago 💬 1

Consequences for the person doing it.

If you steal a car and get caught you're going to prison on top of other problems.

If you send a transaction with data hidden and get detected/rejected, you've just wasted time constructing such transaction and that's all. No prison, no fines, no destruction of reputation.

JackTheMimic 8mo ago

Okay dude, have fun with that brain you have.

Keysa - Simplest Bitcoin Edu 7mo ago

The consequences are either being prevented outright since filters *do* prevent some spam, or getting charged more to include the spam.

Both work to reduce it