Default avatar
twofish 8 months ago
I mean, there is probably a transcription in the video, but my understanding is that spam filters do work sufficiently (without a hardfork) if core would accept the pull request of the spam filter. It doesn't catch everything, but it creates an environment where only the most sophisticated spammers can get through. The fact that this option is being ignored, and then stating because we can't stop it we must do x, is an attack on bitcoin. It's a form of gas lighting by disregarding solutions that address the spam directly. He addresses what I think is core's central point: The proposed spam filter won't stop x so we won't merge it (back in 2023). Mechanic relates it to essentially x being at the tail end of a normal distribution, meaning it doesn't work 100% of the time. Now fast forward to now and the proposed change by core is: Because we can't stop the spam then why should we have one. Which can be rephrased to: Because we can't stop 100% of the spam then why should we have one. It's the fallacy of composition and division: Here is the video:

Replies (2)

jb55's avatar
jb55 _@jb55.com 8 months ago
wasn’t this point ultimately proven wrong once the inscribers ended up burning all their bitcoin? and a catch and mouse game with spammers was ultimately a waste of time ? We have a clean way for adding data to bitcoin without bloating the utxoset, shouldn’t we encourage people to use that instead of retarded stuff like witness data ? Since you can’t stop people from doing consensus compatible retarded things? At least that was my recollection… it’s been awhile.
Default avatar
twofish 8 months ago
Let's start with the premise that this is a cat and mouse game. I don't think it is, but sure let's have it. - Whose time are we wasting exactly? Like, be as specific as you can. Next: We have a clean way for adding data to bitcoin without bloating the utxo set. - Block size is only one dimension. What about bandwidth? If you fall for the Fallacy of Composition and Division, then you end up with the conclusion that we must let them put the data in op return because it's better than the data being shoved into the witness data (bandwidth + CPU time). If you don't fall for the Fallacy of Composition and Division, then you have to go back a step, and proceed forward with your logic.