Replying to ⚡ODT⚡

You call it censorship because you disagree with the content of those transactions, which is subjective. Some peeps don't disagree.

Also, ordinals aside, some rich actor could spam Bitcoin without jpegs. Just move sats back and forth between their wallets, paying high fees to block everyone else. Is that spam? Should you block these transactions? I see them as valid. And we need better ways to deal with that situation than filtering whatever the miner sees as spam.
e3
⚡ODT⚡ 2y ago

If a government pays miners to mine "useless" blocks, I think they should mine them.

The goverment will run out of money eventually (either depleting their resources or hyperinflating).

I don't find the inflation bug similar to the current situation, since it was actually a bug, not a feature.

The permissionless, open and censorship-resistance characteristics are features of Bitcoin, not bugs to be fixed.

Let me clarify, I don't care if ordinals are blocked, I don't care if the US gov's transactions are blocked. But if we start this path, where does it stop?

Maybe my transaction is next.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Meridian 2y ago

"The goverment will run out of money eventually ".

This is the point.

They will never run out of money, due to the fact that they have access to a money printer.

No other users of Bitcoin have access to a money printer.

This is exploitation of Bitcoins game theory, and is not a function of the free market.

They can sustain this attack long enough to ruin Bitcoin, before coming anywhere close to hyper inflating their national currency.

e3
⚡ODT⚡ 2y ago

At 100 sat/vByte, each block costs more than 1 BTC in fees.

With 10 min block time, that's 144 blocks a day.

So they would need to burn 144 Bitcoin a day.

In current exchange rate, $5.7m.

$171m a month.

I guess it sounds doable but wouldn't that just increase the bitcoin price in $ terms, while also increasing fees in both sats and $?

It seems unsustainable in the end...

If the btc price doubles (because the attacker keeps buying), and fees double (200 sats/vByte), that's quadruple the cost... $684m per month.

Unsustainable if you ask me.