It's not a strawman. Static content filters do not mitigate spam on the blockchain at all. To continue the police analogy, to reduce spam you need actual deterrence in the form of very serious real cost. Such cost should ideally be imposed on the spammer or on the miner that facilitates the spammer. The former would require KYC. The latter can be done. But be careful what you wish for.
Sjors Provoost's avatar Sjors Provoost
> If development were primarily about choice the developers ought to instead just ship a copy of GCC: there tada, you get all the choices, write your own node. :) /u/nullc Jokes aside, it's a good post. https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1kab15o/bitcoin_cores_github_mods_have_been_banning_users/mpou6xb/
View quoted note →

Replies (2)

Meant to link to a later post in that thread:
Sjors Provoost's avatar Sjors Provoost
The most effective way to encourage significant censorship by all miners is to credibly threaten them with reorgs if they include bad things. Needless to say, that would set terrible precedent and probably be the actual end of Bitcoin. View quoted note →
View quoted note →
Honestly honoured by your response and love your podcast. I was not arguing for or against the effectiveness of filters in my post. I’m saying that @Luke Dashjr and co want filters that change over time, not **static** filters. Representing the contrary IS a strawman.