If you want your coffee maker to stop coffee grains from entering your coffee, and it doesn't, that's a technical problem. Coffee filters help.
If you want your mempool policy to stop spam from entering your mempool, and it doesn't, that's a technical problem. Spam filters help.
Replies (16)
What a terrible analogy π
Should be easy to defeat then
I welcome you to try
Your coffee filter doesnβt stop motivated actors pissing directly into your coffee cup after youβve made it.
Owned lmao
So make it easier?
"The filter designed to stop spam from entering your mempool does not stop spam from entering your blockchain. Therefore, remove it!"
"The door designed to stop students from entering the staff lounge does not stop them from entering their classrooms. Therefore, remove it!"
Same energy
Nice deflection.
There is a reason to tolerate spam in the blockchain: ejecting it requires a large amount of hashrate, or switching to a different chain, and the cost is high
But the same reason does not apply to your mempool: ejecting most of it from there is easy, and the cost is low
Hey if you wanna kneecap your own mempool, more power to ya. As pointless as I might think that might be, Your node your rules.
When my mempool does what I want, I do not consider it kneecapped, but well formed
And I want my mempool to eject most spam, because spam uses my system's resources for harm instead of for good
Do you close your door at home?
Why? thieves can enter in 30 seconds
Sure, but filtering your mempool isnβt a lock, itβs a blindfold. The βthievesβ still get in, youβve just chosen not to see them.
Allowing easy generation of transactions with SPAM, and certifying that this is permitted and normalized through the use of OP_RETURN, doesn't seem like a great idea to me. I can already see the plugin for Sparrow Wallet or Electrum that allows adding images with two lovers kissing in the OP_RETURN field.
LOL bro these 'plugin's' existed years before v30 in the form of degenerate ordinal wallets. Offering these types of user an alternative solution that can be less harmful to node operators isn't a bad thing.
The main problem is that fee incentives don't align with pushing this behaviour.
I know the problem of the utxo set and I'm partially agree with you, but I think filters are better than no filters.
This is my opinion.
