Nostr Web Client

Not quite that simple, of course.

As theyre valid transactions (I know, I know), it would incentivize sending them out of band which completely messes up fee estimation

I think the only real solution is greater adoption of bitcoin, and to price out the spam

My principles are above fee estimation, it's a cheap excuse by shitcoiners.

We could survive just fine with inaccurate rate estimates, we always have.

So then youd have spam and no accurate estimate of fee. Congrats

I repeat, your argumentation is a surrender, you just repeat what your favorite influencers say, the more people use software with filters the more it slows down the spread of spam, the last solution will be to send spam directly to the miners, that creates other problems? Yes, but you have to fight it, don't you?

Yea my "favorite influencer" is heavy on the filters side

Sounds like youre "fighting " for the sake of fighting, without understanding why youre fighting. Thats how you end up hurting yourself

This is easy, you use whatever you want and I'll use software with filters 🤷‍♂️

Exactly how incentives are supposed to be. Then we can talk later about how unfair it is that spam was undererred lol

Theyre not even a big issue, a little fee spike from degens every now and then. But nodes are designed for full blocks. The only thing that makes it more costly to host than financial transactions is that it bloats the utxo set. If payments cant compete economically with spam, then might as well just give up on bitcoin honestly lol

You're just as myopic as him about this issue. Stop listening to the political takes and learn the nuance.

Lmao tell me more about how the mempool doesnt affect fee estimation. Just because there may be other factors, doesnt mean its unaffected.

Im the only one providing nuance here. Feel free to contribute

I didn't say it has no affect whatsoever, dumbass.

So you have no argument

What a strange little mind you have.

Come back when youre ready to make an actual point.

All these "mempools dont affect fee estimation" comments with nothing to back it up are pathetic.

If youre gonna criticize people for "getting something wrong," then point out specifics.

The argument is that the impact on GOOD fee estimation is negligible to the point that we really don't care vs the other concerns, and anyone can implement a better fee estimation technique, and should, because shitty fee estimation relies on a very shaky set of assumptions, of which only one is that the mempools are all the same. Good fee estimation takes into account factors like previous confirmed blocks and other things, and at the very very least rakes into account cache in addition to the mempool.

You're just regurgitating talking points and pretending that that's all there is to understand. It's clear you don't want to learn by the way you argue, but in case you actually do want to learn, watch Bitcoin Audible Take_099 from nostr:nprofile1qqstnem9g6aqv3tw6vqaneftcj06frns56lj9q470gdww228vysz8hqpzdmhxue69uhkzmr8duh82arcduhx7mn9qy2hwumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgqgdwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkcam28zl who goes much further into depth than most people, and who actually understands the tradeoffs at play here.

I love how people cry about "regurgitating talking points" only when its about something they disagree with. Meanwhile youre regurgitating talking points from Guy/Mechanic. Language is funny. And I love them and in fact listened to that episode.

The comparisons between email spam and btc spam isnt perfect, but they do a great job of explaining their side.

The issue is that there are very valid arguments on both sides. But pretending that everybody on the other side is malicious because they disagree with you because you want to LARP as a cypherpunk warrior is dangerous (not referring to you)

I tend to agree with you. And yeah that's rather not what I'm doing. I am regurgitating true talking points that are relevant and important after my own assessment lol! It would appear you are too, though you seemed unwilling to discuss things in a productive manner to me.

Just so you know, I am in favor of, foremost, property rights (people can and ought to be in control of their mempools and everything else about their node, which they are, even if they run Core or Libre, so long as they are not seriously misled), then, what I would like to see happen and what I personally do with my node, is a lot of filtering of spam but with more forgiving settings on OP_RETURN, around 160 bytes or less, with a penalty that kicks in when the mempool is full that requires them to pay a lot more per byte at that time (my setting is at like 4 weight units per byte). I want spam that is most harmful to be disincentivized the most, and spam that is less harmful to be disincentivized substantially, but reliably less than the most harmful crap, especially as there may indeed be legitimate transactions with arbitrary data, but at a cost to users. This paradigm being adopted by a significant number of nodes would make the path of least resistance for arbitrary data go somewhere least harmful, and yet still decrease spam, in an environment wherein miners have to take on additional risk to circumvent the spam filters.

The nodes are in control. I want to educate them further. If only I do this, it doesn't hurt me: my cache will fill in the blocks. If I and like 5% of other noderumners do this, we will have a noticeable, though slight, impact on the network. What's great about Bitcoin is that we don't all have to be right. That's something even Mechanic doesn't seem to get. I want real discussion though, we can't get to these solutions unless we engage that way.

Too much time on X has me too defensive too quickly, I think lol.

Although Ill admit the language of the post (anybody who disagrees with me is an enemy or aiding the enemy) is what initially triggered me as I hate that black and white level of thinking.

As for the filter debate, I dont actually have that strong of an opinion because I do think that more financial transactions on btc would price them out (although who knows, the "art" industry is full of money laundering shenanigans as is), and history has shown that filtering them out is a neverending cat and mouse game.

I have my issues with core, especially recently, but I do think OP_RETURN would be the least harmful way.

I think the most effective solution is to ruthlessly criticize and shame spammers lol

That's fair! I bet the best solution is a combination of a bunch of bitcoiners employing our two methods in tandem, honestly lol! Rough consensus is great

Bro, good fee estimates don't rely on the mempool. You both need to learn more about these technicals.

😂

The case for nodes being in control of their own mempools is even stronger than you think it is. Don't accept Core team's false dichotomies.

So basically going all in on filters would practically accomplish nothing except shooting ourselves in the foot.

As long as the transactions are valid, they will find their way into blocks. There will always be a miner who wants the fee, thats the whole structure of its censorship resistance

Your argumentation is a surrender

No, its just logical. If you think fees will go up as they must, that solves most of the spam issue

Maybe core is right, finding a way to stuff arbitrary data into a block will ALWAYS happen.

Might as well do it in a way that doesnt bloat utxo set.

Natural incentives are what make the system work, and I suspect its what fixes this problem also

Tariffs solve spam? Another false argument, shitcoiners have even paid more than 500s/b for spam…

You clearly have zero idea what youre talking about lol

All emotional arguments, not much logic

😂 don't you know better?

It would appear that way. You just compared a regular transaction with a tariff lol

Wrong.

It's logical from your set of assumptions. You're not in view of the whole picture though.

Not necessarily. He simply doesn't understand. And then he surrendered trying to understand further... wait 🤣

Thoughts? Also nostr:nprofile1qqs0eac2gh86s9l24qfmnw52xawhz0f3d862yleaetpafygjmanaxlspp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wvh8xmmrd9skc5jkkq4 and nostr:nprofile1qqsrmkj9qz9q8ywhjvlp4e7v8wzyhlv3eykaalg02h8x4lgz2am09kcpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgtcpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsccd6lr

I don't think that's true. The spam filters do incentivize things like Slipstream, yes, but Slipstream has a bit of an issue: it is always risking that in a race condition, it could lose, and most likely would lose, all of that work. We could exploit this race condition to make it even more penalizing to miners, perhaps, when they do not respect what the network is telling them. Greater miner decentralization via OCEAN helps, and miners make better margins on OCEAN so there is a strong incentive to use it for any educated miner out there.

Javier 8mo ago

They will have to pay the miner directly which will cost 3-5 times more. It has been working for more than a decade now, what's the point on touching it?

FernandoTheKoala 8mo ago

Let me open by saying that if it was for me, btc would be used only for money tx and I’d eliminate the spam issue at a consensus level. I don’t like this thing, but I’ve been trying to better understand core ideas behind this.

So, for sake of argument let’s take for granted it’s not possible to change this at consensus level. It seems that spams will always find a workaround, and if miners open private channels to allow these spams, it will be very very difficult in the future to make them change to public channels which are way less harmful (because it’d be too expensive for them to change).

Since atm mining is highly centralized, and it’s impossible to stop spam, it seems the reasoning is to find a way to make ppl spam in the least possible harmful way (and to prevent further mining centralization through direct requests)

I like the idea that we should find a way for the market to deal with this itself, and push spam out cause they’ll be too expensive. I like the idea that the best defense is to be as open as possible and preventing spams at the same time (that way we’d be impenetrable).

On the other hand I don’t like the idea that we are not more vocal about mining centralization which is the fundamental issue here (I mean, if mining was truly decentralized we wouldn’t be taking about all this, right?). I fell like core is saying “atm mining is highly centralized and this is the best way we have to deal with it atm. For now let’s avoid further mining centralization which would be an enormous issue”

Again, I don’t like this whole thing, but I’ve been reading a lot and trying to better get the reasoning behind all this. It’s hard to believe a core move away from btc as money, and if they’d fuck up the monetary aspect of btc it would also harm themselves, I don’t see this as plausible (or maybe I really wanna believe it lol)

Javier 8mo ago

Your answer is ok, but take in consideration that there was no need to touch it. The simple act of touching something that they didn't need to touch which could facilitate more spam is what has raised the alarms in the community.

Also, the condescending attitude.

His_Name_Was_Robert_Paulson 7mo ago

Like watching another person who claims to be a better drawer, continuously use an eraser on our page till they put a hole in it.

GermanHodl 8mo ago

AFAIK fee estimation is not done solely based on the mempool, also not from core. So this is a strawmen argument.

Also if miners decide to put out of band garbage in their blocks, those blocks propagate slower through the network (as nodes need to request those tx first). This sets an incentive for miners to not mine garbage, as they risk loosing the block race through the network against garbage free blocks.

Javier 8mo ago

Correct.

OFFGRID 8mo ago

Alpha males run Knotttttts

😏

Changes start with yourself, if you don't take the first step nothing will change.

nevent1qqs9p2vlpd0pkwr6xrr60wl3qppd3czpev7w48xzaygdmskfyhryx8qpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhg4c3jue