That sounds like a strawman to me. The start of the dispute was a PR to update datacarrier size to consider Taproot. Furthermore, I haven’t heard claims that spam would be prevented, only mitigated.
Login to reply
Replies (3)
Exactly, and that’s the entire narrative of the spam apologists: we can’t score a definitive win against spam, so we should abandon the fight entirely. To me, these people expose themselves as either intentionally dishonest or bad actors.
Even if it worked as you say it has significant negative consequences if people bypass it creating UNPRUNABLE data.
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.
> 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 →