In the fork war nodes were being asked to store crazy amounts of data to facilitate the whole world using L1 cheaply in perpetuity.
In the spam war, nodes are being asked to relay as much data as possible for no benefit whatsoever.
We are not a serious project.
It kills me because at least during the fork war we all agreed on what bitcoin *was* - it was just a question of tradeoffs.
This war however is an effort to redefine Bitcoin entirely - as arbitrary data storage that can sort of do money as an additional cool feature.
Replies (17)
Isn’t it the same amount of data as full blocks?
Per transaction? No.
In theory, if a L2 that’s built did monetary transactions than that might not be true?
Well, in reality that's not what's happening. Also, L2's have no need for excessive data to settle on L1, so moot point as well.
"during the fork war we all agreed on what bitcoin *was*"
I remember it completely different and have a strong feeling most big blockers at that time feel different about this as well.
Sad to see OG’s being compromised
Nope, they’re just irrelevant now. You gotta be prepared to slay your heroes in the Bitcoin game
> This war however is an effort to redefine Bitcoin entirely - as arbitrary data storage that can sort of do money as an additional cool feature.
It’s not going to work. People have their entire net worth tied up in Bitcoin; they’re not going to go against their own incentives because some blue-haired fags and a woman out of her depth want to encourage this behaviour.
Like other culture wars. Used to disagree on the methods to achieve the goals, but now on the goals themselves.
Nack
What's your (practical) plan to change the consensus rules about what transactions can be mined?
Applying a filter to some relay nodes isn't very effective
I have no intention of doing that
It’s effective for my nodes purpose
I'd say they are both the same though. It's disrespect of property rights and of the massive chain of unintended consequences by people who are ideologically indoctrinated to think either that they know everything or that what they don't know doesn't matter.
Constantly changing consensus to impose effective spam filters would have way too many additional costs and would result in many needless forks without even solving the problem. Spam evolves faster than we could even do this, and it would incur way too many bad side effects. It is not an option.
Node sovereignty does far more than you think.
This is why I like Mechanic's focus. It is even good for if you think spam is not spam. What is spam to you may not be to someone else, but you have every right to refuse to relay it with your own computer.
