Definition of Chain Spam

Chain spam is a tx on the blockchain containing data such as text, pics, audio, or video. A tx on the blockchain is not spam if, in as few bytes as possible, it does one of only two things, and nothing else: (1) transfers value on L1 or (2) sweeps funds from an HTLC or similar address created while trying to transfer value on an L2. The term "value" means the "value" field in L1 BTC utxos, and "transferring" it means reducing the amount in that field in the sender's utxos and increasing it in the recipient's utxos.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Thankx..😇😇🧡🧡

Cool. Now make a proposal for L1 to actually implement it and implement a signaling mechanism to actually turn it on. Otherwise, it's just words.

Words have meanings and purpose. Just like Bitcoin.

Words don't mean shit when it comes to implementation of solutions. Code does.

You tech bros with your 1s and 0s logic really bore me to death 🥱

So why not print infinite amount of Bitcoin and give it to everyone. Ignore proof of work, and ignore the code that holds Bitcoin together. Let's just have trust in a central thought and just have infinite Bitcoin.

We need those technical to help construct what Bitcoin is. If you only want just vibes go to shithereum or soldana. If you want true freedom stick with Bitcoin.

nostr:nprofile1qqspdudqzqx5ellme3prp68qus5se3vynsddcexkv5la5p7qxxcswjcpzdmhxue69uhk7enxvd5xz6tw9ec82c30qythwumn8ghj7un9d3shjt3s0p3ksct59e3k7mf0mj6y3a is right, words without action is pointless for things like the future of money and freedom.

Haven’t said or implied anything of that sort 😂

Part of defining a spec is soliciting feedback, friend

I hereby solicit feedback

Looks good to me. Can we actually define the mime types in a proposal?

I am unsatisfied either the definition, thanks to feedback provided by others. Specifically, the definition makes coinjoins spam

How to constitute the difference between complex transactions and mime types of common file extensions seems really difficult to me, but if it can be done, I'm not against it. I would think it would take much more compute from a node to throw these out and decrease decentralization if the compute cost is high.

What I would really like to revert is witness stuffing. The real economic solution to jpegs. Not OP_RETURN.

You don't reduce the amount in the sender's UTXO, you destroy it.

Destruction seems like a form of reduction

or (3) if I'm the recipient or sender of the transaction

I disagree, I am perfectly capable of producing spam transactions and do so in many of my experiments

I think it would be wise for users to filter them, especially in case someone runs one of my spam experiments on mainnet