@Unhosted Marcellus @Luke Dashjr That would be a reason why #Ordislow could be a solution. Since the Bitcoin mempool fee auction seams not to address effectively against dust and insertion of arbitrary data on discount via witness (at least on the short and medium term), #Ordislow could represent a discouragement (and not censorship) to create and process those kind of transactions. That discouragement via #Ordislow could equilibrate the incentive created by #SegWit. New kinds of bypassing could easily be detected and addressed by adjustment mechanism (code update or similar) since detection is factor easier than creating a path for bypassing. That kind of “cat and mouse game” could open a way how Bitcoin System could detect and address its weaknesses; thus meaning it anti-fragiler.

*making it

@Luke Dashjr @Unhosted Marcellus Following that answer’s rationale, then the past implementation of numerous Bitcoin Core Client policy rules were a waste; yet history has shown, having those options (optionality for economical node operators) enables the possibility of anti-fragility emergence. While Bitcoin System is permissionless (and that’s a desired feature which provides a value proposition), it is all about incentives and disincentives; encouragements and discouragements.

@Luke Dashjr @Unhosted Marcellus Why insertion of arbitrary data is an action which should be discouraged? It is because it threats with the most important feature of the Bitcoin System and that is “node decentralization”. Incrementing the operation cost for a Bitcoin regular node (aka. archival-full-node) reduces the adoption of people to run one (running a node does not provide monetary profit; fact which appeared after the separation of mining activity from the original “Bitcoin node”). Therefore, taking into account, that nowadays no monetary incentives exists running a node and, that it represent a resource cost running one, each marginal cost increment has a potential consequence of marginal node decentralization reduction. (Relaying on the technological development and production in the field of solid state storage devices is not sufficient since its rate is not guaranteed to be gather than the fiat dilution rate and the merchant and producer adoption of bitcoin as payment probably would take some time; and that adoption would depend on the Bitcoin regular node decentralization).

He's not. Spam filtration is always a cat and mouse game. That doesn't mean the spam gets to win.

In fact the game is heavily stacked in favor of the defenders. It's orders of magnitude more difficult to find novel ways to embed data in transactions than it is to detect and discard them with mempool policy! Attackers can only win long term by psyopping the defenders into believing that it is pointless to play the cat and mouse game.

Thank you, I was looking for arguments to answer the email.

Well, prove to me that I’m wrong by giving us the only thing we can’t get ourselves, the code.

I'm glad that more people are waking up to the fact that Bitcoin is under attack. I'm sure a solution can be found even if it means suspending #TapRoot. In the meantime. Legal action seems appropriate. We know who many of the players are. People should be advised that participation in scriptions etc may expose them to personal legal liability. These attacks may be ripe for the new expanded cyber crimes office. As well as Class Action litigation. CFTC, SEC, FTC and FBI action too. Bitcoin is not a toy. People's savings are not a toy..⚖️👮‍♂️💀

He has several options to stop inscriptions, however legal actions are not part of it.

Taproot is not the problem at all. It didn't enable this

I know you didn't. Smart..👍🙂

Nor do I expect him to. His developer expertise are what's needed. At least he spoke up early, and proposed action. Everyone else is acting like they're on some kind of runaway train. #SnowPiercer..lol But it doesn't mean the rest of us can't pursue #legal #relief for the damages already done, until the code can be patched or repaired. And people need to be warned that what they're doing may have serious #legal and #financial consequences..💀 #Bitcoin

In that case a stronger argument would be: regardless what anyone thinks regarding inscriptions (if they are spam or not) *everyone* should agree that those who see them as spam deserve to have the option to not relay them, even if it has to be turned on manually. In my view, arguing that "nobody" tweaks their configuration file is anti-bitcoin thinking. Running a node is all about sovereignty. Having yet another option (there are many) for filtering unconfirmed transactions empowers the node operator to enact his own mempool policy. Conversely, arguing for not adding these options goes against the bitcoin ethos.

Damn, I just sent my answer just now 😖

Damus

leo on nostr

https://cdn.nostr.build/i/505175439776d13fa679391199af9dc7a0810

Nevermind. You're doing great, and you've seen me rambling endlessly for months about all this anyway 😄

🧡