Nostr Web Client

Why would that be the case?

Because spam discourages users from running nodes

I used the analogy of a Justin Bieber forum to highlight this: users want their server software to do the things they had in mind when they started running it. If "storing NFTs for use in altcoin marketplaces" is not one of those things, and yet other people are in fact using their server software to do that, then that is a technical problem. If they see no way to remedy the situation, it may very well discourage them from continuing to run that server.

In the case of a Justin Bieber forum, I think its host *wants* to serve the text of posts about Justin Bieber *without* becoming a file storage system for NFTs. In the case of bitcoin, I think it varies more, but a large number of its node runners want to serve monetary transactions without becoming a file storage system for NFTs. If their server is filled with monetary transactions and very little spam, they will probably be delighted that their server software is working well and doing what they want. But the more spam there is on their server, they may become increasingly dissatisfied with the software, and stop running it. Just like a Justin Bieber server might just quit running the server if it gets filled with too much spam.

On a related note, some node runners seem more willing to tolerate storing and relaying spam if it bets mined into blocks, and I suspect part of the reason for that is because "undoing" the spam-inclusion would require expending lots of hashpower, and it doesn't seem worth it. But in *your own mempool,* you can exclude most spam from that pretty easily, and spam filters help you do so. They help solve a technical problem in an effective way. It is therefore no surprise that when Core announced its intention to remove the large-op-return filter, many users switched to software that keeps it.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Aaron van Wirdum 2mo ago

Ok, so now you’re inferring why other people may or may not want run nodes, which is a largely unfalsifiable claim— though I would point out that the data we have available suggests that users don’t mind: node count has risen in recent years despite all the Inscriptions nonsense.

We can speak for ourselves, however.

For me it makes no difference whether it’s 1MB of monetary data or 1MB of dickbutts. My node operates the same from my perspective. (Even slightly better if it’s dickbutts, but we can leave that aside for now.)

Does it make a difference to you?

Super Testnet 2mo ago

> Does it make a difference to you?

Yes

> users [may not] mind: node count has risen in recent years

Maybe some of them don't. But about 20% of them have switched to using software that reduces the amount of spam on their system. That's telling.

It's also possible for a person to be discouraged by the spam but not yet so discouraged that he stops running his node, or refuses to start. And yet if the discouragement continues to build, it may dissuade new people from starting and long-time node runners from continuing.

Aaron van Wirdum 2mo ago

Does it make a difference to you if it's 1MB of dickbutts in OP_RETURN or 1MB of dickbutts in Inscriptions?

serapath【ツ】☮ 2mo ago

why not introduce policies to make it much less likely for inscriptions to succeed, or even a soft fork to redefine whats standard and valid here?

so instead of asking whether OP_RETURN or Inscriptions, why not instead fight both and solve this issue more thoroughly? 🙂

Super Testnet 2mo ago

Yes, I think such spam is more harmful in op_returns than in inscriptions. Op_returns consume more base blockspace than inscriptions do, and as more of that blockspace is consumed by spam, there is less and less room for non-spam transactions.

Aaron van Wirdum 2mo ago

Ok I think I’m getting close to understanding your perspective, and this also gets back to your OP.

I run a node _primarily_ for myself, and only secondarily to help others.

It sounds like you’re saying you _primarily_ run a node to help others.

Is this correct?

Super Testnet 2mo ago

I do not say I run a node primarily to help others. I do say that filtering spam helps me (it reduces the negative impact of spam on my node), and, if widely used, filters also incentivize miners not to mine spam (which improves the health of the network, and thus helps others).

Aaron van Wirdum 2mo ago

So you run a node primarily for yourself?

Super Testnet 2mo ago

Yes

Aaron van Wirdum 2mo ago

Ok… so would you then agree that from a purely selfish perspective, it’s better to have…

- 1MB of dickbutts in an OP_RETURN

versus

- 1MB of dickbutts in an Inscription + 1MB of monetary data

Super Testnet 2mo ago

For purely selfish reasons, 1MB of jpegs in op_returns are worse than 1MB of jpegs in inscriptions, because op_returns take up more base space, which is the more expensive part of blockspace. My transactions must use some base space, as a transaction that *only* uses the less-expensive witness space would be invalid.

As a result, I prefer *less* of that base space to be consumed by jpegs, so that I can use that space; and therefore, even if I had purely selfish motives, I would consider it worse for 1MB of jpegs to be embedded in op_returns instead of inscriptions.

Super Testnet 2mo ago

That said, my motivations include both self-interest and interest in others. If you want to see what outcome would ensue if I changed my motivations (e.g. "what if you were only interested in yourself") you could prompt the pro-spam position much more efficiently by asking about more directly pro-spam motivations -- e.g. "what if you were interested in seeing more spam on the network." If you tune the motivations properly, you can get any response you like.

Aaron van Wirdum 2mo ago

I think your first answer is kind of changing the topic, since we were discussing node centralization.

Is your concern node centralization, or is it fee pressure, or both?

Super Testnet 2mo ago

Sorry for not replying sooner

I think there are at least two downsides of op_returns: (1) their purpose is to store arbitrary data, which discourages node running the more it is used, and thus increases node centralization; (2) they store that arbitrary data in a relatively precious location -- base space -- which drives up fees more than alternatives like inscription envelopes.

Aaron van Wirdum 2mo ago

No worries.

1. But this is making assumptions on why other people run nodes, right? Since you acknowledge that _you_ primarily run a node for your own benefit (and not taking your tx fees into account; that’s the next point), I don’t think you can honestly argue that 1MB of OP_RETURNs is worse for the performance of your node than 1MB (or more) of data in any other part of a block?..

2. Do you think spam will persistently outbid monetary transactions for block space?

Thanks for taking the time, I know this has been dragging on for a while now…

Super Testnet 2mo ago

> 1. But this is making assumptions on why other people run nodes, right?

Yes. The specific assumption is: some people run a node with a mempool to help relay some other transactions on the network, but do not want to extend that help to spam transactions.

> I don't think you can honestly argue that 1MB of OP_RETURNS is worse for the performance of your node than 1MB (or more) of data in any other part of a block?

If the data was identical, and if I was excluded from using the argument about base space being more valuable than witness space (to be considered in the next paragraph), then I would not object to the statement that 1MB of OP_RETURNS do no further harm to a node's performance than the same data in another part of a block.

> Do you think spam will persistently outbid monetary transactions for block space?

I do not think so because I do not think I am a reliable predictor of the future. But if I thought I could reliably predict that nothing will change, then I would also predict that spam will often outbid monetary transactions in the future, because I think they often do so in the present.

BitTasker 2mo ago

just love your work and eyeing up some of your projects for deployment #mustdeploy

Aaron van Wirdum 2mo ago

Ok I think we’ve probably made it to the end of our argument tree: the “agree to disagree stage”!

I’ll post my responses; feel free to rebut them if you feel like you can and want to— or not. Up to you :)

1. Since both you and me run a node primarily for our own benefit, I think it’s reasonable to extrapolate that to other users as well. Since data in OP_RETURN would not discourage you or me from running a node (versus data in other parts of a transaction) I don’t think increasing the OP_RETURN relay default will have a centralizing effect.

2. I think over time monetary transactions will be outbid by other monetary transactions— spam will barely enter the equation, if at all. (Maybe if it’s very compact, Open Timestamps style, in which case it’s also not a big problem.) Also see: nostr:nevent1qqs8tpwm4jzknwcllmujqtw8rr6hlwx5rlzp0sdhhjz3h4a62wkq4lsp9dmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumwdae8gtnnda3kjctv9aex2mrp0yh8xmn0wf6zuum0vd5kzmqzyr5dvlzrtf99jvzwzs2zsr549mlp00jz2n72y7gkha3lnae72j46gqcyqqqqqqgmh5vw9

Toxic Bitcoiner 2mo ago

Ah yes, “Peer to Peer Electronic Dickbutt System” is better. What are you smoking?