> “if X percentage of filtering nodes are unable to 100% reliably stop spam, then they don’t work” is just a fallacious claim. The obvious contradiction is that if 99.9% nodes aggressively filter spam, and filtered txs still end up in blocks (they can), then filters also can’t be used for censorship (the whole argument falls apart)
So we agree: censoring doesn't work if it's not at the level of consensus: if it did, bitcoin would fail. but further, what kind of restrictions can and should exist at the consensus level is very controversial. even limiting the *rate* of transactions per block was controversial enough to create a full blown war in Bitcoin, for years. The only argument that falls apart is the one saying there's any point in doing mempool filtering; while there are very clear and concrete negative outcomes (though I wouldn't overplay them) from filtering, too.
> And no, filters work not because they reliably prevent spam from getting into blocks, but because they force behaviour that makes spam economically and rationally self-defeating (to a large extent)
I don't agree. Your argument seems to be that they make spam much more expensive, but I see absolutely no reason to think that, specifically because, as we already agreed, they don't work - the same transactions you are filtering end up in blocks, relayed directly to miners, often.
You claimed in your first post that filters are antithetical to Bitcoin’s censorship resistance. I see you admit that was a lie. Good. If you watch the video I shared, maybe you’ll eventually admit that they don’t really do harm either (except to stupid VC grifts). As for filters making spam more expensive, I can prove this too but to get it, you need to step out of your comfort tech bubble and enter the world of economics and Praxeology.
nostr:nevent1qqsv00e0s7mk6m6qdv9sddraepcxdt2qku78xfpau6tpwamnw2fpsdg5csrdw
No, they are antithetical. The fact that they don't work directly links to that point. Because Bitcoin's entire design was to prevent that working (censorship).
So the nuance is only: I'm against using filters because they deteriorate Bitcoin's decentralization somewhat, and make the user's life a little harder too. I'm not *spectacularly* anti- them, because they don't completely kill the network.
I'm more forcefully against the arguments I've heard for them, than I am against filters themselves. Same principle as being anti censorship: if that's how you want to run your node, so be it (even if I'm sure it's ill considered!).
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
