That’s complete bonkers and if it was true then there is no usecase for non-mining nodes on the network and 95 000 noderunners somehow got psyoped into doing the most stupid thing. It also makes this whole debate meaningless.
Discussion
It’s not bonkers, and it doesn’t invalidate the reason to have non-mining nodes.
Non-mining nodes hold and propagate YOUR OWN txns to the wider network, and it validates blocks so the user knows the accurate state of the network.
Running your own node is great, even if it doesn’t mine.
If your tx is non-standard and only a small subset of nodes accepts it, its propagation is severely limited. That drastically reduces its chances of reaching any miner, unless a miner is explicitly accepting or directly given the tx. That’s why out of 7 million standard op_return txs in 2025 only 30 are non-standard. You can verify this. This’s why Ordinals have to rely on alternative node software (like Libre) or private miner deals (Slipstream) in case the broken datacarriersize gets fixed someday and they no longer can fool nodes to be recognised as standard. Nodes don’t just serve as a private pleb relays or balance checkers. They have security purposes in the policy part where they can be reactive in situations that are precisely as the current one. Bitcoin has a rich history of spam attacks and many of them have been mitigated by making swift changes to policy.
Filters on Knots will only strengthen the alternative p2p networks which relay non-standard. Bitcoin is censorship resistant! That transaction just has to get to one mempool to get mined!
The only solution would be to fork a change making the datacarrier size a consensus rule.
Also though, what historical precedent of policy are you referring to? I only can point to something like satoshi dice spam which wasn’t solved by policy but just being priced out.
> That transaction just has to get to one mempool to get mined!
Ok, sure. Let’s test how easy (and cheap) is to send a non-standard tx to one miner mempool and get it into a block, when there is a reliable policy filter involved.
Send 100 sats to this address: bc1q64npl22z0pxf4lg303wctfxq3tdjf8zd9txcnn
Then post the ID from the block explorer. Let’s see the outcome.
> Filters on Knots will only strengthen the alternative p2p networks which relay non-standard.
This contradicts the common narrative that filters don’t work. If filtration will strengthen the spammers p2p networks, then they must do a decent job of what they’re made to do. So do they work, or not? Even if the private accelerators get a few more private deals, I thought your camp is pretty on board with miners making extra bucks because that’s “iNcEntIVe COmPaTiblE”. What I don’t get is why we bitcoin users should start suddenly negotiating with terrorists when during the entire history of Bitcoin we have always discouraged and fought arbitrarily data on the blockchain?
My camp lol I’m just here explaining how I understand thing
Well you’re parroting their gaslighting talking points 1:1 so pardon my confusion.