I favour conservatism and strict transaction use. I think it would serve Bitcoin better. That said, I would not bet on futures. Because I’m not putting funds on an exchange. And there is an easier option to show discomfort. Namely, choosing the more conservative node implementation/don’t upgrade for now.
Discussion
Conservatism and strict transaction use are opposites in reality. That's the problem many people refuse to understand.
So let’s explain to people instead of arbitrarily pushing and merging code despite contention.
Check out the what Bitcoin did episode with Antoine.
It is hard to explain when people like bombastic claims and memes and calling "bad actor" anyone who challenges their mental model.
Also there probably are some bad actors. Combine it with ragebating algos and you end up with shit ton of noise.
How do you believe so? I assume because enforcing strict transaction use requires more and more filters in the future? In that case you might be right. But I was referring to being conservative on the use case of Bitcoin. Not necessarily the code base. Although I would also be down to discuss and look for consensus changes to Bitcoin to keep arbitrary data out. I don’t know how and I too like the advantages of P2SH. But I like to think we have decades to think about this. That’s what I mean by conservatism. Not getting frustrated when seemingly good changes to Bitcoin are not there yet after years. That’s okay.
No. Enforcing strict transaction use requires consensus change -> fork.
Decreasing the volume of spam might be achieved with filters. But does not enforce anything.
(If there is one miner with "custom" mempool filters the spam will be mined. Most of the miners are aware of config file on their node and want to get payed)
To enforce something on mem pool level means forcing every miner to use that mem pool setting.
(If a UASF/URSF split were to happen, non-upgraded nodes would follow whichever chain is the longest.)
