(Hint, there isn’t one, it’s a rhetorical question)
Discussion
If the filter worked and made it annoying enough for them not to bother going to a miner out of band, then there wouldn’t be a transaction on the blockchain in the first place (which is the point).
Hard to prove how many transactions the filters have kept keep out by making it harder to use though isn’t it?
You can just post a txhex, if it pays a market fee rate, I’m sure it’ll get included in a block. It takes 2 clicks to get it into slipstream the friction is near 0 at this point
Would a failed spammer want to out themselves tho?
They can just submit the tx to slipstream, the failure rate isn’t there. If you pay the fee, filters don’t work
The fees are the filter
Yeah they filter out people that can’t afford to pay them even if they want to use the network for monetary purposes
Whoever values their transaction most gets confirmed. Simple as that. If "monetary purposes" are not valued as highly as something else that someone else values more then you are probably doing it wrong.
Those dirty poor people just need to get richer, am I right?
Very odd to apply a moral lens to an anarchic system, if you wanted an ESG monetary system may I suggest Fiat?
Way to miss the point lol
Good to know you agree that non wealthy people that can’t outbid the fee of scammers are “doing it wrong”
You can’t escape morality. Bitcoin and everything else humans create are for the purpose of increasing human flourishing, in principle at least. You can’t just look at a piece of code and be blind or obtuse about the purpose of that piece of code or anything else we create for that matter
No. You’re missing the point of Bitcoin, and are one unironic half step into making a Roger ver bcash argument of babies are dying because of transaction fees.
I’m missing the point of Bitcoin? 🤣
It couldn’t be you who supports people wanting to put jpegs on the chain and having all nodes relay and store those jpegs in their mempool without an incentive that is missing the point of P2P cash. Can’t make this stuff up
Why do you accept JPGs in the blocks you receive? Your node is complicit in the spam until you fork off.
That’s not how it works or what the debate is about, but nice try lol
The debate is it requires a consensus change to change any of this, which is obviously true.
The debate is I don’t want to be forces to relay or store spam on my mempool.
You will not gaslight me or anyone else into making life easier for you and your spammer friends
The response to that, is that no one is saying you aren't allowed to do whatever you want with your own software, you are making a point no one is disagreeing with.
The next step to this is, does this have any impact on the network? And the answer is no, and if you want to actually change network behavior you need a change in consensus to do that.
No one was trying to remove the users ability to configure their node to filter out txns with an OP_RETURN exceeding a certain size?
No one is trying to remove filters from the default of Core?
No one is campaigning against filters saying they don’t work and trying to expand the amount of data that can be stored in OP_RETURN so spammers can save money and can more easily put their spam on the chain?
Ok bro, go gaslight someone else
No. Its Free Open Source Software, you can run your own fork and do whatever you want.
Here is GMax explaining this exact point on reddit.
Stop thinking like a serf and just do whatever you want in bitcoin.
No one is arguing filters prevent people from paying a high fee and handing the jpegs directly to Marathon or any other miner
Try creating a txn with an OP_RETURN greater than 80 bytes and see how far it goes
Nodes have no incentive to store spam in their mempools or to relay it to other nodes
You can use libre relay and send larger op returns already.
I can jump a wall and break a door. What’s your point?
People leveraging the bitcoin protocol to become sovereign have no incentive to relay garbage around to other nodes and store that in their mempool.
That spammers can get around by tricking nodes into accepting spam or going directly to miners is not a reason for them start passing around spam.
Telling noderunners to just get on with the program and relay spam because it may end up in the chain anyway and gaslight them into thinking filters don’t work because they don’t stop every single spam txn is a hard sell and bad strategy.
“Tricking nodes” - write the consensus change and fork off, otherwise, you consent to using the code this way and are complicit.
Again with the projection and deflection lol
Anti spammers are not calling for consensus changes
I have no obligation or incentive to relay or store spam on my node
The people that need to rage quit and fork off already are those trying to make it so nodes are forces to relay and store spam in their mempools
My comment was a hint as well