Replying to Avatar Yena

You can't enforce 'spam is illegitimate'. You can try removing some types you don't particularly like, but it's naive to assume doing that will actually make Bitcoin more monetary. And what if it doesn't?

What if you are not satisfied after fork #1?

What if the spammers whom you stopped to spam look for the next way?

How many spam forks are needed when enough is enough and realize people who want to waste money trolling (or launching scams) on the global permissionless decentralized monetary network will always be able to do so.
Avatar
Super Testnet 0mo ago

> You can't enforce 'spam is illegitimate'

I am happy to discuss the effectiveness of spam limits in another thread. In this thread, my aim is to get consensus on this proposition:

it's okay to block other people's transactions based on moral objections

Got a problem with that?

Then you'll have to get rid of the 21 million cap, doublespend prevention, and proof of work. Because those all exist to block other people's transactions based on moral objections.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Yena 0mo ago

That's an odd use of 'moral objection'

Having moral objections to spam Tx's and therefore changing consensus to remove some certain types then why not do this for Txs that are of very bad monetary nature?

Avatar
Super Testnet 0mo ago 💬 1

I think it is okay to do this for Txs that are of a bad monetary nature

For example, if someone creates coins outside of the mining protocol, I think it is okay to burn the newly created coins and block such a tx from happening again

I also think that if someone creates a spam tx, it is okay to make their outputs unspendable and bloc such a tx from happening again

But that's what I think. What do *you* think?

Avatar
Scrotus 0mo ago

More halfbaked goalpost moving.