Yet another solid rant by nostr:nprofile1qqs8fl79rnpsz5x00xmvkvtd8g2u7ve2k2dr3lkfadyy4v24r4k3s4spzdmhxue69uhhwmm59e6hg7r09ehkuef0s9jd25.
Spam must be dealt with, not encouraged.
Discussion
Yep, call the police
Spam in blocks is dealt with by having the spammer pay a high(er) fee for it right? This should be the effective discouraging system against spam Adam came up with...
And for miners the blocks could be filled with "spam" for all they care. As spam can also be defined as everything you don't care for, like for instance all other payments by others to others...
If a miner is prepared to pay the bill for the electricity, but does not find a block, the energy was not wasted/waste. Like when a gamer is prepared to pay the electricity bill to play a game, the energy to make that possible was not wasted.
If a "spammer" is prepared to pay the fee for adding data to a block, it is no different from being prepared to pay the fee for adding meaningless transaction to others to the chain, also recorded by one's full node.
Is essence the HDD on one's full node is already a dump of data useless to the individual except for their individual transactions. And all of the "useless" data was paid for trough fees, otherwise it would not have ended up in a block and miners would not have given it any priority.
"Dealt with" is a euphemism for "Censored". Bitcoin is a free market engine that kills off censoring attackers:
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...)