Replying to ihsotas

Do you think people putting stupid monkey JPEGs on Bitcoin care how expensive it is? Or how difficult it is? Adding cost to the spam from people like that doesn’t matter. Cause they are creating the spam to either launder large sums of money or to sell their stupid shit to the next greater fool. The cost of the transaction doesn’t come into play for either situation.

Op return limit could always be circumvented by direct to miner submission. Storing shit on Bitcoin is not economical at all anyway, so the belief that the lack of op return limit will make people use it for data storage seems unlikely. You can store data on an Amazon forever for hundreds of orders of magnitude less than Bitcoin, so if economics are driving spam the choice is clearly not Bitcoin.
Avatar
leadbyexample 2mo ago

Someone else made this argument to me already.

Yes, shitcoiners are not above wasting good money to store garbage, yet that is still not a reason to not make them spend more anyway.

On the same page, and maybe you have a good argument for it because I haven't seen one yet: considering that any downside, resource-wise, coming from filtering transactions that are later included in a block anyway, is an issue exclusively for the filtering node, and does not involve other nodes on the network, what is the pressing reason to remove the filters? They don't work, right? The official narrative is that filters are useless.

So why remove the choice of node runners to use them in the first place? Shouldn't make a difference either way.

Moreover, "you can't stop people from spamming" but it seems that they are very intent on stopping people from filtering.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.