Thread

Zero-JS Hypermedia Browser

Relays: 5
Replies: 3
Generated: 00:53:02
I am happy to discuss the effectiveness of spam limits in another thread. In this thread, my aim is to get consensus on this proposition: it's sometimes okay to block other people's transactions based on moral objections Got a problem with that? Then you'll have to get rid of the 21 million cap, doublespend prevention, and proof of work. Because those all exist to block other people's transactions based on moral objections. So what do *you* think? Is it sometimes okay to block other people's transactions based on moral objections?
2025-12-04 18:36:16 from 1 relay(s) ↑ Parent 2 replies ↓
Login to reply

Replies (3)

Frame failure; Miners can do whatever for whatever reason, the whole crux IS the practical, i.e. some other miner will what other miners won't, which is the whole premisse of Bitcoin's censorship resistance. You might have thought framing it morally was cute or whatever, but its all practical; also the reason why i thought the whole debate was retarded from the get-go, and amazed it even escalated as it did. Whatever my dude, even changing consensus rules is a practical matter, so good luck with that, anything else is frankly just masturbation.
2025-12-04 18:46:13 from 1 relay(s) ↑ Parent 1 replies ↓ Reply
If someone is going to pay a terrorist to detonate a bomb with an onchain transaction do you try to prevent that transaction from being mined? Or do you persue an avenue of terrorism prevention off-chain?
2025-12-05 19:06:36 from 1 relay(s) ↑ Parent Reply