right, which is why I call it virtue signalling. you can't stop other people from sending consensus valid transactions full stop.
best we can do is discourage abuse of the network. and filters are not effective at that, and create other bad side effects like pushing people to non-p2p relay which harms the censorship resistance of the network.
I feel like the use of Virtue signaling implies that I am trying to send a signal by my actions, when I am just acting. Throwing a ball is not a signal that others should also throw balls.
I think it could only really be reasonably construed as virtue signalling if the person is actively trying to be part of a tribe, that being the supposedly virtuous one. If they are mostly keeping to themselves then it can't be virtue signalling.
If people are choosing to bypass nodes and rely on non-p2p relay, would that not represent a cost?
Asking out of curiosity, not because I have much of a dog in this fight.
