Subnostr

So, can talk about this high fee environment and how it's effectively creating the same mobility issue as gold? Did Rune do this, because it's effectively an attack on the network. If that's true, then the what are the proposed solutions?

I've heard people talk about spam filters for the network, but isn't that effectively censoring transaxrions? If we start censoring transactions, then maybe someone can help me understand from a technical aspect, how this censorship-resistant asset stays censorship free... while we begin to censor?

#Bitcoin #WTF

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

21seasons 1y ago

Censoring tx's is fiat mindset

GrumpyGardener 1y ago

agreed. it destroys the whole principle of what we're doing here. I don't know enough about the base layer or how we got to where we are, but it's my understanding (and I could be very wrong) that Taproot opened the door to these shenanigans.

Do you know the history here or how we got here?

21seasons 1y ago

No, there have been these same possibilities since the beginning, usability and scalability of arbitrary data in the chain was already discussed in 2011 in bitcointalk forum and abandoned in 2012. Since them there have been multiple times it was tried. Omni, Counterparty, RGB etc. It nothing new under the #Bitcoin sun.

21seasons 1y ago

Segwit and taproot have only made it a bit cheaper to add data onchain

Matt 1y ago

Applying a filter to your own machine isn't censorship. Censorship requires force, and there's no force being applied to other miners. Anyone can come in and not filter if they wish. I lean toward no filters, but calling it censorship is inaccurate. That's the answer to your question. False premise.

Matt 1y ago

Or nodes

21seasons 1y ago

By applying filters to own node is only that you're censoring yourself, and there's nothing wrong with that. But applying network level filters to some implementation which are on by default, is that kind of censoring that could be worrying