Nostr Web Client

What’s the net negative from filtering?

The fee market competion for transaction finality will be the best, most neutral, longterm uncorruptible filter.

Standardness filters set by a group or groups (even honest, well meaning humans) can be influenced/corrupted.

Where is the line? Who decides on the parameters of the filters? Protecting bitcoin by being really really smart about filters is not a neutral sustainable approach.

Non financial uses will be priced out or they will compete - long term - and be able to afford the fees because they provide real sustainable value

The Monkey JPEGers and most (all?) non-money data storage bros will run out of cash. I will out work them and will out bid them in the fee market.

🌍🧑‍🚀🔫🧑‍🚀

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Tauri 4mo ago 💬 1

Individual node runners decide on the parameters of the filters. They bear the cost of running and maintaining their machines at no compensation, so they should have the final word on what to filter and what to relay. The “fee market competition” is showing that so far spam is outcompeting monetary transactions by overwhelming majority.

McCoy 4mo ago 💬 1

Individual node runners will seek guidance by those with tech expertise + motivation to set filters.

Should I dial it to 80 bytes or 83? How about 90? IDK *let me ask around*

Point is that this type of *filtering* on a long-time horizon can be corrupted/influenced, especially when compared to the level playing-field offered by a neutral agnostic fee market.

Tauri 4mo ago

Yes and all of these arguments are still *very* weak justifications for removing the configurability of the filters or blowing them out completely. The “neutral agnostic fee market” only works well in a non-distorted system, that unfortunately has gone off the rails thanks to how centralised mining has become.