Because spam in pubkeys make nodes expensive to run. Unspent transaction outputs basically need to fit into ram. I'd rather store the monkey jpeg on 4tb hard drive or delete it if I'm running a pruned node than to buy more RAM to run a node.
For this to be the case, this way of storing monkey jpegs (in pubkeys) has to be more expensive than other options.
So that means there has to be a cheaper way that works.
So what is wrong with closing off the currently abused exploits and leaving OP_RETURN only?
Regardless, wanting less UTXO bloat is the best argument for this that I've heard. It would be nice if Core focused on that as the messaging.
UTXO set doesn't need to be stored in RAM.
RAM is used to cache UTXOs that are actually used, so they must be actually spendable (hence no fake pubkeys) and then get spent at some point in time, because a UTXO that is not moved, will after a while be removed from the RAM cache and relegated to disk storage forever, never needing to be fetched again.
Still can't be pruned. Still has to be in a data structure that you need to be eventually able to search. There's no way to tell if pubkey will be spent on the future.
I can produce another analogy 😊
Just kidding.
I played with AI to make some simulations.
So let's assume one could either store garbage at 1sat/vB, or at 10sat/vB (let's say it will be uneconomical to go beyond10 for sick shitcoinining spammers).
Let's also consider that while OP_RETURN has basically just its storage costs, using fake pubkeys carries larger overhead per unit of shitcoinery size, plus each fake pubkey output requires its dust limit 546sats to be locked forever, same thing as paying a fee.
Long story short, no matter the total garbage size (I queried for 1kb, 20kb and 100kb) at 10sat/vB, using fake pubkeys instead of OP_RETURN means spending about 3x the cost per shitcoin size unit, but other than that you're also paying 10sat/vB which is not cheap.
At 1sat/vB (more realistic at current feerates), using fake pubkeys costs a whopping 18x OP_RETURN.
I understand shitcoiners do not care about messing with the UTXO set, but they do care about spending as little as possible.
Are we sure it's a good idea to give them a cheaper, better alternative to do that, which was not available before?
Do you know what the cobra effect was?
Yes, I know the cobra effect.
Please remember the shitcoiners were happily paying a lot:
During the peak of Bitcoin ordinals and inscriptions activity in early May 2023 (particularly around May 7-9), the fee rates paid for transactions, including those for inscriptions and ordinals, typically ranged from approximately 100 to 700 sats per vByte.
While it's a good idea to increase the price to be just a bit cheaper than the worst option, the filters don't do that.
The criminal liability is mostly FUD. Node runners are not even held criminally liable for accepting sanctioned transactions as valid. And the 'it's continuous' is mostly bullshit. Also, it's not a real problem, no one really wants to store cp in Bitcoin. Why spreading the fud now? If it happens, you just prune it from your node or don't answer the request for that particular tx in p2p if it comes to that. It won't.
I don't think there is a way to prune just OP_RETURN, i need a Full Node with TXINDEX enabled so a can't delete JPEGS.
With spam filters i can try to block JPEGS and i think on long term Miners who accept SPAM directly will loose hashrate in the future.
Just a little part of UTXO set is in RAM, most of it is on storage.
The idea of wrong estimator fee because i don't see the transaction, it' a fake problem.
This is my opinion
If you need non pruned node, you will store spam regardless of how it's encoded. Your node would be slower though, using a larger data structure is more computationally complex.
Many people can run a pruned node.
Op_return spam vs utxo set spam - clear winner for op_return in both cases.
Mining pools that get more btc from fees will gain hashrate, not lose it. From the off band tx they will include only those that pay more than those in the mempool. And since you can mine each block anonymously, it doesn't matter for them.. If I have a miner, I want most sats per hashrate.
0.01% of revenue now is by fees, miner wants just the coinbase.
All bitcoiners who have a powerful ASIC choose non spam mining pool.
Everyone else miners thinks More spam=more blockchain problems=less btc value.
No one wants spam neither miners....I hope
Nope, spam censoring pools are in a minority. Fee revenue is low now because the blocks are empty, but it can be significant source of revenue for the miners, check may 2023 at the peak of spam activity.
Some blocks had more in fees than coin subsidy and miners happily mined spam to collect the fees. It would be irresponsible for revenue not to.
In a way, spam solves the security budget problem :)
Today offchain transactions are the majority, lightning, custodial services, ecash, fedimint.
I hope layer 1 will never reach that kind of fees.
Miners will be on the right side...I hope 😁
