Basically to back the age old tiring arguments around "spam" with some proof-of-work.
It's too cheap to say your node does X. It's even too cheap to say your pool censors X, since there's negligible revenue impact in the current fee market. And equally negligible hinderance for the person doing X, since it just goes in the next block.
Reorging a competitor block is an expensive signal. And if it succeeds it would deter other miners to include X.
Of course it would set a terrible example for governments to copy, but hey, gotta fight "spam" at all cost, right?
Appreciate the creativity here — it’s the kind of idea that gets people thinking. I guess it's partly tongue-in-cheek, but only partly.
Spam is real (and frustrating!), but reality is a little more complicated. Storing big things like images on-chain can reduce Bitcoin’s ability to do private transactions (like client-side validation), hurts L2 development, and unfortunately prices out the poorest users first.
Sometimes the real question isn’t "is this spam?" but "is this disruptive?"
After all, a big reorg might be perfectly intentional, but for most people, it would still feel disruptive.
Miners already have plenty of ways to signal concern — even off-chain, through places like Nostr. No need to burden the chain itself, which thrives by staying neutral and resilient.
Bitcoin’s real magic was launching fairly, under proof-of-work — not favoring anyone, not playing politics. That’s a rare thing, and maybe worth protecting with some humility.
Just my two sats. Thought provoking proposal! :)
