This one line also destroys the contiguous data argument. for loops aren’t hard.

But if I prune my node it won’t serve IBD to the network.

Having to download & verify the data to begin with is the real problem. Encourgaing one type of spam to prevent another just seems retarded. We should just find ways to discourage all spam & work to decentralize mining so that bitcoin is used as it was intended.

Economic incentives will always trump all “preferences” and is how bitcoin is designed to operate.

Everyone believes in economic incentives until they need a reason to change mempool policy for their venture capital plans.

Then they manufacture some appeal to emotions and utility to convince people of their bad ideas.

Also Doom 😂

"I'm doing my part to disincentivize the KKK from having public parades by encouraging them to rent a private hall at 4x the expense - so that the rest of us don't have to see."

Solid plan. 👍

You are getting closer to a valid argument, but it remains incomplete. Filters still provide resistance to spam, making it more expensive the more nodes filter it. Your argument is essentially: "Since Core doesn’t filter spam in OP_RETURN or the UTXO set, and UTXOs are less efficient for the network, then spammers should be allowed to use OP_RETURN."

The real question is whether spam should be filtered. The only counterargument presented is "filters don’t work," which is a red herring. The argument against filters that do work is that they are centralizing, but this claim is made without evidence. Yes, IP RBLs are centralized, but they are an ancient and ineffective solution, especially in the era of Tor. Bayesian filters are far more effective, though they can be poisoned; again, an old problem. The fact that we don’t have perfect filters is not an argument against using filters at all.

The assertion that every mempool on every node must be identical is presented without justification, and that requirement itself is a centralizing force.

This leaves us with: "Core devs are dedicated and underpaid and shouldn’t have to argue with non-experts; they should just do what they’re good at, which is writing software." This is the most pathetic argument of all. It relies on argumentum ad authoritatum and argumentum ad passiones, and implies that we should entrust our future and fortune to people who are wholly socially inept. Not only is this a highly questionable request, it also leaves open the possibility that these same developers might be unable to defend their "technical" positions against more cunning and malevolent influences; whose presence we are fully aware of.

Not all one liners are the same.

Since you like arguments from authority, you should be aware that Nick Szabo disagrees. https://x.com/NickSzabo4/status/1972458907412103359

Or you could patch CVE-2023-50428 into core and disincentive it a lot more than “asking” spammers to pay more money.

How about we just keep Bitcoin as pure money. I can find the Bitcoin white paper in two seconds on the internet. In fact I have a copy saved to my hard drive.

Thank you for continuing to educate. It’s helped me as a non-technical understand this entire situation much more thoroughly.

Utreexo fixes this

Woah Intresting

nostr:nevent1qqstfavefyaxtghnm3seq4m4ae9pl5awms26d36y3jqjuwjrslz34vsprfmhxue69uhhq7tjv9kkjepwve5kzar2v9nzucm0d5hsygpjuxp8vd29p6ancknaztql3eajk52y8xkppfn7au7elkw9c68zg5psgqqqqqqs24jw23

did you know that the transaction was mined by Luke 12 years ago

did you know it would be filtered out by the current version of Knots and Core

Your technical arguments appear to me to be sound and worthy of very serious consideration and debate. However, it’s important to acknowledge that many in the community feel Core initially dismissed their concerns and then doubled down, which fostered division and mistrust. While the technical rationale holds and is reasonable, the perception of arrogance has fueled ongoing controversy. Many believe Core leaders could have done more to build consensus and dialogue before pushing a fracturing change. Core devs feel insulted, attacked and unappreciated, personally threatened. This is more a community, political, leadership and governance issue than it is a technical issue. IMHO.

The question is if there will be a significant demand for spam if you need to find workarounds like this because there is no standardized easy way to do so. Maybe it’s not a good idea to make spam more easy.

Kaspa has been here for a while now. This isn’t new.

nostr:nevent1qqstfavefyaxtghnm3seq4m4ae9pl5awms26d36y3jqjuwjrslz34vsprfmhxue69uhhq7tjv9kkjepwve5kzar2v9nzucm0d5hs7zwkwf

nostr:npub1andyx2xqhwffeg595snk9a8ll43j6dvw5jzpljm5yjm3qync7peqzl8jd4 You see the irony here?

nostr:nevent1qqstfavefyaxtghnm3seq4m4ae9pl5awms26d36y3jqjuwjrslz34vsprfmhxue69uhhq7tjv9kkjepwve5kzar2v9nzucm0d5hs7zwkwf

The white paper is hidden on every Mac as well for those that didn’t know.

If everyone is using only pruned nodes, new nodes won't be able to download the blockchain, bitcoin will die