You can’t have a peer to peer cash system without data storage; it’s not binary, that’s objective. You will store the transactions as a node op, you will store the data. You cannot solve the double spend problem without data storage lol. This is not the avenue to have a grounded and healthy discussion. Yes, this is a Landauer Attack on the protocol/nodes and the source of the attack started in 2017 with SegWit. We are all implicit in spam by supporting SegWit in the current implementation. If you care about the bits on your node, why are discounting the bits that are allowed to be written to your node? (1) 4MB block full of spam is the same amount of data as (4) 1MB pre-Segwit block full of spam or not. The fact is you have 4x increase the chain growth in 1 block of time AND you have discounted the bits such that it costs cheaper on a sat per bit basis to write (1) 4MB segwit block than (4) 1MB pre segwit blocks. Not only does it cost cheaper to spam your node priced in satoshis but it grows 4X faster in size than Satoshi’s original chain. This should be obvious. We broke Satoshi’s constant ratio: 2.1 Quadrillion bits of value competing for 1MB of bitspace. We inflated the protocol constants. We devalued the nodes. If you don’t see SegWit as the Landauer attack, you don’t get it. BIP 110 doesn’t fix this, it fixes a symptom. You will still misprice the bits on your node with 110. This has everything to do with SegWit. Quantum was just my point that we should not take his words as gospel, but we should take his protocol as gospel. “Upgrades” are the attack, full stop. Bug fixes if any are reasonable (obviously). The hubris to believe we are upgrading the protocol, everything has tradeoffs. Bitcoin as originally released was not broken as a concept; SegWit has changed the concept of Bitcoin by distorting the free/fee market of blockspace and the constants Satoshi set in stone. You can’t value your node if you play an active role in warping the cost incentives to write bits to your node. Stop discounting your bits if you hate spam. Don’t allow a 4MB block size if storage growth is a concern. CSAM existed prior to SegWit, it was just way more costly such that the behavior could not be sustained across multiple blocks of time. SegWit was a necessary mistake in the process. All of this was. Every bit added to protocol source code is the Landauer attack. Anything regarding the chain is downstream of protocol. Stop changing the DNA. We seemingly need to revert the bloat in the DNA. Can we preserve LN with 1MB blocks and no Segwit discount?