This. It's a mere assumption that setting a fee for data of any type is good enough. The pro spam advocates also fail to consider that it is the RIGHT of individual nodes to do whatever they want with their own computer, that rearranging or filtering your copy of transactions aggresses against absolutely no one, and that setting individual policies as a node is the ONLY thing that safeguards the network. The consensus rules for example are called consensus because of consent, not the decrees of some group of devs. There's a word for this latter paradigm: fiat.
bitcoinlimit's avatar bitcoinlimit
the idea that fees alone stop spam sounds good on paper, but breaks down fast when you look at real attacks. fees swing around. on a quiet sunday morning, an attacker can jam blocks with junk for pennies. by the time fees rise, the junk is already locked in and every node has to store it forever. not every attacker cares about burning money. governments (especially governments who want bitcoin to die) ideological actors, rival coins, or just rich trolls can spam even when fees are high. think about that for a second and you’ll realize that this action immediately invites some actors/bodies to throw unlimited resources at trying to kill bitcoin. economic deterrence only works on people with limited resources who care about economics. spammers pay miners, but the cost lands on everyone else. every node has to download, process, and store spam transactions forever. the bitcoin blockchain itself remained neutral 'til now, it's simply a ledger of txs. the problematic content emerges only when specialized software interprets blockchain data in ways that reconstruct harmful material. until now, the defense was that bitcoin doesnt support data, it requires extra tools and software to transform it to CSAM. however, with the introduction of core 30, this distinction becomes less tenable. 30 effectively transforms every participating node into a component of a distributed storage system making operators potentially complicit in hosting content rather than merely maintaining tx records. this shift fundamentally changes the nature of node operation from passive record-keeping to active data hosting, raising new questions about liability and responsibility for network participants. another words every node running core 30 effectively becomes part of the data-storage layer and thats a big problem! if bitcoin is money and if you’re a monetary maximalist, there’s no such thing as “legitimate or interesting content” on the network beyond tx data.
View quoted note →