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.
Login to reply
Replies (16)
I'll also add that using bitcoin for data storage is lame ass. It's mind boggling that this is even a debate in the bitcoin space.
Someone finally fucking said it. Amen.
Its a deceitful cope by Calle as he wants to build L2s on Bitcoin and needs op return blown open to do it. He is happy to lie to everyones face and deflect from his own grifting.
I can’t believe these conniving, greedy people. To think at what’s at stake. #bitcoin is the only chance we have. And they’re fucking it up. Unbelievable.
fee spikes kill organic tx growth
Bitcoin has to be resistant in some way (or fail).
It has always been strange to me a small group controls the code of the one freedom tool available to mankind.
Did anyone believed that attack vector would not be used ?
So now we will see how this get resolved.
I see ad hominem has entered the chat...
You didn't argue anything against it, rather just attacked him and his motives.
You would convince a whole lot more people if you can help explain why his 'cope' is incorrect.
I certainly cannot do so, what say you?
So for us regular node running plebs, just don’t update to core v30?
What is there to argue against that hasnt already been said?
He just repeating the same lies and illogical fallacies. I am not ad hom attacking him , i am calling him out on his actions - there is a difference. Ad homin attack was what they did to Luke rather than address the v30 release issue.
Regardless, the issue is already resolved, im running knots and will continie to call out Core when they lie
They are poor losers who dont have any bitcoin. They fucked up, didnt buy when it was cheap and / or sold. Now they desparate to catch up.
They are poor losers who dont have any bitcoin. They fucked up, didnt buy when it was cheap and / or sold. Now they desparate to catch up.
To point out someone’s conflict of interest and motive is a fact, not ad hominem
Ordinals caused disruption with high fees……
Introduced by taproot inadvertently, but had real on chain ramifications…….
It failed…….
Enter blown out Op return through V30…….
No thank you….
What do you think about things like opentimestamps.org ?
Also not belonging onchain?
He was just adding his own separate point. @bitcoinlimit already made a good argument and so did I.
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.
View quoted note →
View quoted note →