I hate circling around the same old issues for years over years. You can't fight spam if you want a truly open and anonymous system.
The lesson is there is no solution except proof of work / bItcoin.
Discussion
Who wants an open and anonymous system?
Strictly speaking, itās an open, permissionless chatroomāmuch like how any Bitcoiner can send a Bitcoin transaction.
I thought ephemeral chats were like sending a transaction to the mempool, only you have more mempools, and after 10 minutes your message is deleted instead of being sent.
After all, a client/wallet can have a spam filter, but bitcoiners don't understand the first filter, only the second.
Bitchat knots ftw š
I like what you are saying on Twitter. I agree with your point.
we tested zaps on this noteā¦ your profile only specifies a nip05 nostr address, but not a lightning address, so we tried to zap your nip05 address.... we made six attempts toā”zap this note, at louis@unsupervised.online, over a period of 1 minute. in each case, we found that your lightning address service or server did not respond correctly. if you wanted to fix this... you could try getting a free rizful lightning address -- https://rizful.com ... if u get it set up, pls reply here so we can do this ā”zap test again.
Correct. PoW could be a new based supscription each month proving you're willing to do some work for using the service/client. Maybe that work could go to mining on that service/client BTC address. And in the same time helping bitcoin decentralization. But CPUs are not suitable for bitcoin mining? āļø Tell that to nerdminer :) every bit of hash power counts even if it so miniscule.
Or if anyone is anti Bitcoin mining because it's heating our planet and we're all going to die. They can contribute to foldingathome.org
Basicaly PoW should be a new way of subscription.
Yes bots can do PoW also but at least they'll do something meaningful instead just spreading spam.
Is this about spam on the BTC chain, or on bitchat?
I guess it's about both!
Proof of work doesn't fight spam. Spammers generally have more pow than users.
tokenized pow = sats
Proof of money is not proof of work.
Bitcoin is literally tokenized proof of work
Yep, but tokenized proof of work is money, not work itself. What you are talking is literally proof of stake.
Isn't it equivalent at the end? If your PoW spam protection is sha256, aren't the spammers losing very real potential to make money?
In that case, what is the difference between demanding a 10 sats payment and demanding PoW that would have earned 10 sats in a mining pool?
Yep. For spammers, it's quite literally the same. But paying is easier. They are spending regardless. The key here is that real Spammers (not the kid running a script in his computer) only exist because it works: they have profits from their spam.
Very good point, protocols where spamming isn't profitable (i.e spammers can only harm but not really profit) should think about PoW differently.
Even just harming. People pay to harm others. It's a business model like any other.
Yes but that model is never sustainable when the victim manages to survive. For example DDoS don't last forever, it disrupts but not kill. If that wasn't the case there would be a one time price for killing Bit torrent or Tor or Nostr, but if your network can't be killed out right, the value of DDoS is much lower.
Sometimes the goal is to just temporarily disrupt anyway. Its just like suying people without any grounds. The goal is to make them waste time, money and attention, not to actually win.
Yes but my point is, the value of that is substantially less than taking over something... For example, it is always possible to disrupt Bitcoin but because the cost of taking it over forever or for long term is astronomical, we see way less attempts of disruption at all.
I only say that because I am working on a decentralised registry of short names, so the distinction between taking over a name Vs just disrupting the system is very important and very much on my mind at the moment
How long for me and my cheap Android phone to get to those 10 sats, chugging along at whatever kilohashes per second?
Bitcoin cannot qualify as tokenized proof-of-work either way.
Blocks earlier in the chain did less work, while earning more sats per piece of work.
That's what tokenization does. It locks in the price of time in that time. That's why a tokenized thing is not the thing itself. The value was locked in the past and that alone significantly changes incentives.
It would be cool to have the ability to create custom chats where you can set the minimum amount of btc needed to enter it, a sort of a filter
This would be best described as a patch or stopgap.