like all of us have been, I’m considering the core/knots debate.
I think Adam Back is making reasonable arguments against knots from a legal perspective. if you try to get a tighter leash on what unconfirmed transactions get broadcast, it stands to reason that the legal attack vector grows.
also, core obviously doesn’t allow blocks to exceed 4mb, so this doesn’t make it more difficult to run a node.
here’s the thing I can’t quite understand, though:
if core wants spammers to use op_return, something 4x more expensive than other avenues, what is the economic incentive there? it seems like another avenue that spammers *could take*, with no economic incentive to get them there.
tagging nostr:nprofile1qqs9pk20ctv9srrg9vr354p03v0rrgsqkpggh2u45va77zz4mu5p6ccpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsz9mhwden5te0wfjkccte9ehx7um5wghxyctwvshsv577ew here bc he has been instrumental in helping me at least understand core’s position
Login to reply
Replies (4)
Makes no sense, mate. Theres no incentive to pay 4x unless you want to attack it. Long prison sentences for distributing and receiving.
op_return is harm reduction.
reasonable approach, hard for some to accept. always has been.
can’t disagree. thanks for publicly defending your pro-core stance. it’s convinced me. it’s really refreshing to see a side make logical arguments rather than state that if you run core 1) you’re killing a thing you personally care about and 2) you’re going to prison.
hopefully over time we’ll be able to align the economic incentives with using op_return for spam.
there is only one economic alignment built into bitcoin and that's transaction fees (and difficulty adjustment and the price of energy for miners) .
over the long run, either the money use-case outbids the rest, or it's not going to work out. it strictly depends on how valuable people think the money use case is for them. virtue signaling isn't going to achieve anything. this is a project for the next hundred years.