I see you moved the goalposts from "original script" to "live script" 😏
Your question is unclear. If you're referring to the Lugano panel where Luke and Mechanic insisted on ad hominem fallacies that Peter and I are bad actors, my goal was to get them to admit they were planning a consensus change rather than relying on relay policies.
But they have no balls, so they stuck to slinging bullshit propaganda which was hilarious when they announced BIP-118 48 hours later.
But my point remains: brainwashed puritans can hate me all they want, it will accomplish nothing.
there is absolutely no "spam” problem. Quite the inverse. Fees are incredibly low because chain activity is a fucking ghost town. There’s always been non-financial data on chain, from the genesis block (‘Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks' quote). Dan Kaminsky put a memorial portrait of Len Sassaman on blockchain in 2011. This narrative of “spam” is total newfag shit. It instantly tells me you have not been around Bitcoin long at all.
40% spam is not problem for this clown. 99% will not be a problem for him too, because at the end of the day, he is a clown
FreedomMoneyIsFuture
Spam forms currently more than 40% of Bitcoin's transactions.
Large OP_RETURNs just give more options to the spammers. It does not fix inscriptions or ordinals or any other form of spam.
We need to limit arbitrary data on consensus level with BIP110 softfork.
Run Bitcoin Knots to keep your mempools clean of spam.
https://thebitcoinportal.com/onchain/spam-analysis/overview
I'm only interested in knowing what you intend to do about it if you actually have a novel proposal. I'm generally uninterested in grievance merchants.
Bitcoin is a globally distributed database to keep track of the current state of money ownership. Thus, the properties of that database and the incentives for interacting with it are rather relevant.