Thread - Nostr Hypermedia

Guy, it's like asking "I can't believe how any smart people could think that cops can stop all crime!" That's not the claim. It's that filters enable your miner to select transactions YOU want to include. That is literally it. And by the same logic "if everyone followed the law, there would be no crime" is the same as the filter contention. But if MOST people filtered there would be LESS spam because of the sheer popularity of filtering. It's not a mandate, it's a consensus. Right now there is no dominant consensus. I hope this helped you understand.

↑ Parent

Replies (4)

Elephant in the root 8 months ago

The comparison doesn't work because there are significant negative consequences to the person doing the crime if he gets caught while there are practically not significant negative consequences from having arbitrary data caught as such.

1 replies ↓

JackTheMimic 8 months ago

Ah, so you don't see centralization of a financial network as a problem? But like so many of these analogies they are not 1 to 1 comparisons or else I would just state the situation at hand instead of contriving a similar situation to illustrate a point in more understandable terms. "Apples are sweet and delicious" "That's like saying oranges are sweet and delicious" You: No, it's not because oranges have a different nutrition profile from apples.

1 replies ↓

Kayne kayne@nostrcheck.me 8 months ago

Police don't prevent any crime, they actually increase crime rates. So I don't think it's a fair comparison unless the spam filter is actually increasing the amount of spam.

1 replies ↓

JackTheMimic 8 months ago

Lol, I mean I would say even as an anarchist, police reduce crimes by people in a community. Police committing crimes is another issue but also it would be speculation to assume a net increase or reduction in crime in the absence of police because private security does not have enough sample size versus the state police sample size. REGARDLESS of ALL of that my point was that you don't remove the option of defense, in a voluntary association. @Guy Swann gave a better analogy using a fence to explain the conflict here.