"Dealt with" is a euphemism for "Censored". Bitcoin is a free market engine that kills off censoring attackers:
Yet another solid rant by nostr:nprofile1qqs8fl79rnpsz5x00xmvkvtd8g2u7ve2k2dr3lkfadyy4v24r4k3s4spzdmhxue69uhhwmm59e6hg7r09ehkuef0s9jd25.
Spam must be dealt with, not encouraged.
Discussion
Censorship is a function of authority. No one node has authority over the network. You are using the wrong word.
Property rights protections are not censorship. You control the rules in your own house, computer, and code. You enforcing your rules does not enforce them on others.
Are transaction with an invalid signature censored then?
That's a savage picture btw, didn't know fee difference is this extreme.
Txs with invalid signatures will create an invalid block, so I would say they are "rejected" rather than "censored".
The sample size of the picture is small, so the skew might not be that bad over time. However, the OCEAN's failure to attract >1% of the total hashpower is a revealing fact about the market's preferences.
If miners censor individual transactions for a long time, they still produce valid blocks. I don't think block validity is relayed to censorship.
Yes, even empty blocks are valid and reorgs are valid blocks as well. However, these blocks are not economically competitive in the long run (unless you have a massive short position on Bitcoin...)