Replying to Avatar Lyn Alden

I'm using Thorn (who does talk to institutions, and most institutions are shitcoiners) as one example. But then I also pointed out that I talk to those institutional allocators to, and I'm hearing it directly from them- they're worried about quantum and macro, not Core/Knots. Many don't even know about Core/Knots.

Feel free to fork consensus. My argument has been that filters won't stop non-monetary transactions from getting into the blockchain if they meet consensus, and indeed they have not, which is why people are still talking about it and are now talking about potential forks.
Avatar
Bitcoin_To_The_Oblivion 1mo ago đź’¬ 1

Those institutional allocators are fiat maximalists and they don't run their own node and verify txs by themselves. They all go to CONBASE or someone else to custody their coins. Why do you think that they would ever care about spam? This whole issue mostly affects the self sovereign bitcoiners who run their own node. Do you form your opinion based on what institutional allocaters tell you or self sovereign bitcoiners tell you?

Moreover why do you think that pro-filters people think spam can be stopped? I have never seen any bitcoiner (who understand the spam and filter) saying that filters would stop the spam.

The goal has always been to mitigate spam not fixing it. There has been a lot of data proving the point that filters absolutely mitigate the spam. I can't believe that you are still making this argument after 2-3 years of spam war. Very disappointing.

Since you used to be system engineer, I assume you must have been a part of process where you had to mitigate the risk even if you knew that you can't completely fix/stop the risk.

With due all respect, the more responses I read from you the more I think you should seriously come out of simpfluencers & coretards circlejerk. You can still not support knots and I respect that but you should seriously consider researching more on this topic.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

06
Skeptologist 1mo ago

Hi, I presume that given the amount of fiat money they handle and their worship of said fiat money, they might care about credible risks to it?

While I certainly don”t like the idea of some forms of spam currently on the blockchain, I fear that the introduction of gatekeeping is potentially the thin edge of a centralization wedge - kind of the antithesis to bitcoin - and a potential, significant point of weakness for regulatory attack.

I’m interested to know your thoughts on what the difference in endpoints would be with and without the filters you propose? If you prevent the addition of spam moving forward, what about that which is already and immutably embedded in the blockchain, that will be forever propagated?

Which ever way you slice it,, bitcoin remains the best form of money humanity has witnessed. For better or for worse, societies evolve and revolve around their money. My hope is that a society built around bitcoin will ultimately be better than the current one; and even if this takes so long that I am not around to enjoy it myself, it is still a worthwhile pursuit.

For this to happen though, bitcoin can’t forever exist in a vacuum for a minority; it has to eventually be for everyone. Building on top of the base layer protocol with a variety of use cases would only strengthen the former, both from a technical standpoint and by further legitimizing it in the eyes of those that don’t yet know how good and important it is for them. Perhaps if we accelerate this process, a financial disincentive for spam will soon arise and mitigate the need for filters?

FYI - this is how you present a view with all due respect ✌️