Thread

If it maked sense it would be easy to explain ;)

Because you're censoring what can be in there??

their thinking is that dictating what is and isn't spam is censorship, even if its decentralized individuals making that decision.

It's more about the default. Defaults matter. You can roll your own node software with a small change to the main repo, in your own repository, no one is even trying to stop you. What people are trying to stop is the DEFAULT being relaxed because defaults matter and make up a large amount of the market. Pressuring Core who are also free and independent and not working for you or your specific interests, to maintain a default because you like it, even when there are externalities and costs and long term downsides for Bitcoin because you disapprove of the content that would be permitted once the defaults are relaxed is kind of censorship isn't it? Wanting a governing body to maintain a definition of what is spam and what isn't is exactly the type of thing Bitcoiners should be digusted by and fight against.

No. Setting my own mempool policy is not censorship at all. Don't know about you, but I have the freedom of speech. I'm allowed to say whatever I want. Censorship is preventing people from speaking. Isn't it more like tyranny when the dominant implementation makes changes that will force you to do something against your will. In fact this is the type of thing bitcoiners should be fighting against. A single organization dictating what my mempool should look like. Absolutely insane.

Did you read my post? You're free to do what you want, you don't get to make CORE write the code to do it.

You do realize that's exactly what we have now: "A single organization dictating what my mempool should look like." If we stop filtering by DEFAULT (PLEASE READ THIS WORD) and let everyone do what they want, then no one person or implementation of filters or set of nodes is going to dictate anything, where our current implementation of DEFAULTS (THIS IS THE IMPORTANT WORD IN THIS SENTENCE) is precisely a single dominant organization setting up the policy that blocks some transactions from propogating without back channels. These transactions are financially viable. People demand them, god help them.

Did you read mine? I never said that i can make anyone do anything. But people claim knots is censorship all the time which is obviously not true. No one has made a single good case supporting that claim, including you.

You're setting up a straw man, do you realize? There's no such thing as censorship within a decentralized network. Every node does what it wants to do and doesn't by itself have power. The RESULT is very similar, if there are defaults set up in a reference implementation or if enough nodes do this. So the people who maintain that reference implementation have to think about the result of their filters in aggregate. Not simply on that one node that's running the software. You are just running a node, but they have to consider the aggregate. Because it results in censoring these transactions when enough nodes don't propagate them. Back channels are required to get around that emergent censorship of these valid transactions. If the RESULT of these filters, given enough nodes implementing them, is a censoring of them from the mem-pool, other than using a black-market for transactions, then where would we say this censoring is coming from? It's obviously right that it's not censorship for you to do this in your node configuration, but it also is very similar in result to censorship in the end. If the major implementation of our nodes is maintaining a feature that results in censorship, that is similar enough to a government managing policies about what we can do on Bitcoin, for me. I don't like it.

If the result wasn't censorship of these transactions, then you wouldn't want to do it.

I don’t care what happens to your filthy transactions. If your transactions have a problem being censored than make better transactions. I will never have this problem because I am not imposing a bunch of garbage on my peers. I respect their private property and will use as little of their resources as humanly possible. If you don’t also do that it’s your problem, not mine.

Ok, there ya go. We've arrived together at the Truth. It is censorship, and that's the point of it. Thank you. I don't disagree that we need to adjust things. A discount for witness data doesn't seem appropriate anymore. However, you do want the censorship, you don't just want to keep the transaction propagation costs away from your personal node. You want the dominant implementation to be on your filtering configuration to effectuate censorship. You want to effectuate censorship of some 'bad' transactions. That's a bit awkward for anarchists to swallow, to say the least. It's not inaccurate to say this, as established. There's no threat to Bitcoin from these transactions. It's about costs and paying them for things you don't approve of. You don't want the network to pay, for your node to cost more for things that you don't approve of. Bitcoin isn't what you approve of it being. It is what it is. It is what we make it. It isn't only what it was intended to be. It isn't a Constitution. It's alive. It becomes what we make it. I look forward to a world where it eats everything. Every title, every payment, every major legal document or contract. Why not? Technically, not morally. Why, technically, could we not? Are we not preparing for millions of tx per sec on lightning? Oh are we afraid of the little government man who wants to hassle us for some garbage data on our nodes? Defend yourself. Bitcoin shouldn't have to shapeshift to protect you.

You are right about one thing. Bitcoin is what we make it. What you are missing is that this is not only a technical discussion. Filling up nodes with garbage creates a disincentive to run a node. What incentive do I have to relay and mine transactions full of garbage. We signed up for money not jpegs. And defending my private property is not censorship, deal with it.

I appreciate your position and the respectful discussion. The main thing I am critical of is the idea that you think you can stop the jepgs or 'non monetary data' on Bitcoin. Even the softfork plan would not accomplish much. Harm minimization is an overall good, here. The miners are mining them. Your node is getting filled up more with the filters, long term, as the transactions are confirmed and the dApps use alternatives that cause UTXO set bloat.