Nostr Web Client

> Spam is subject to semantics

In a bitcoin context, it is also subject to definition: chainspam is data embedded in blockchain txs not there solely to securely transfer, reclaim, or privatize value. Transfer means reduce the senders' amount and increase the recipients'. Reclaim means restore part/all of the senders' amount after a failed payment. Privatize means do a coinjoin or similar.

> If we cannot create an algorithm that gets rid of 100% spam for everyone, than we simply don't know what spam is for everyone

It may be possible to express the above definition in one or more algorithms that together filter all spam except possibly for spam requiring off-chain disclosure of a deciphering key. But even if not, there are algorithms that eliminate entire classes of spam from user mempools; they are in use in Knots, for example. One need not have a 100% effectiveness rate for the filters to be useful.

> we must not give in to our urge to censor people we fervently disagree with

Interesting choice of the term "censoring." Why is it wise to filter DoS attacks? Because users find them harmful, regardless of whether the attacker feels censored. For the same reason, it is wise for users to filter any spam they don't want in their mempools, regardless of whether the creator feels censored.

Five 3mo ago

> "In a bitcoin context, it is also subject to definition"

Emphasis on **also**. You still are providing examples, not authoritative definition because if we could code sth like this exactly, we would already have done it and made it consensus.

> "One need not have a 100% effectiveness rate for the filters to be useful."

I agree. That is why there are protections in bitcoin against many types of attacks against real DoS vectors. Op_returns don't present such a threat.

If they did, miners did not have an incentive to mine them because their nodes would crash and mining operations would be disrupted.

They are valid transactions you (and I for the matter) don't agree with but the economical incentive says it is profitable to mine them, and it causes a less far-reaching impact than doing such things in other ways. A filter that disrupts economic activity and has worse impacts than dropping it, is harmful overall.

Users can make whimsical choices and think they will virtue signal with filters but I estimate this is not going to be enough when facing economic reality, especially in the long run.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Super Testnet 3mo ago

> there are protections in bitcoin against many types of attacks against real DoS vectors. Op_returns don't present such a threat. If they did, miners did not have an incentive to mine them

This seems to be the heart of our disagreement. You say spam doesn't present a threat similar to a DoS vector; I say they both cause serious harm, but spam does so more subtly and more slowly. This article by Chris Guida outlines why: https://x.com/cguida6/status/1968117953871720463

As for why miners continue to mine spam, that is the golden goose problem: financial incentives can cause miners to slowly and subtly harm the goose, a knife cut at a time, to get the golden egg more quickly. But the goose may die by a thousand cuts. It is part of why I personally want to eliminate spam from my mempool and slow down blocks that contain it -- to provide a counter financial incentive so that miners will reconsider whether they should mine it or not. And it is also why I invite others to join me in the effort

Yena 3mo ago

> slow down blocks that contain it

Do you relay blocks that have spam Txs to your peers?

Also this seems to disproportionately hurt small miners more