Spam is subject to semantics. If it was not, we would still have decentralized email, because relays could have easily determined unsolicited or otherwise unwanted data, and more providers would exist, not a fiat reputation system of a handful of players applying arbitrary filters, banning mostly anyone from the system that is not in the oligopoly.
If we cannot create an algorithm that gets rid of 100% spam for everyone, than we simply don't know what spam is for everyone.
We have to draw an arbitrary line to not expose ourselves to malicious attacks though, and the most neutral way to do that is using money i.e. economic incentives. It is the most objective tool of valuation that humans have.
**Valuation** determines spam, which is subjective but money makes it less so, with global consensus enforced by cryptography.
That's why we must not give in to our urge to censor people we fervently disagree with. To do that would lead back to authoritarian regimes. Doing so serves our low time-preference brain rather than whimsical action.
Using bitcoin with the most adherence to reality is dropping this arbitrary limit standing in the way of economic incentives, in my opinion.
I could be wrong bit that is where I am right now.
Replies (2)
> Spam is subject to semantics
In a bitcoin context, it is also subject to definition: chainspam is data embedded in blockchain txs not there solely to securely transfer, reclaim, or privatize value. Transfer means reduce the senders' amount and increase the recipients'. Reclaim means restore part/all of the senders' amount after a failed payment. Privatize means do a coinjoin or similar.
> If we cannot create an algorithm that gets rid of 100% spam for everyone, than we simply don't know what spam is for everyone
It may be possible to express the above definition in one or more algorithms that together filter all spam except possibly for spam requiring off-chain disclosure of a deciphering key. But even if not, there are algorithms that eliminate entire classes of spam from user mempools; they are in use in Knots, for example. One need not have a 100% effectiveness rate for the filters to be useful.
> we must not give in to our urge to censor people we fervently disagree with
Interesting choice of the term "censoring." Why is it wise to filter DoS attacks? Because users find them harmful, regardless of whether the attacker feels censored. For the same reason, it is wise for users to filter any spam they don't want in their mempools, regardless of whether the creator feels censored.
> "In a bitcoin context, it is also subject to definition"
Emphasis on **also**. You still are providing examples, not authoritative definition because if we could code sth like this exactly, we would already have done it and made it consensus.
> "One need not have a 100% effectiveness rate for the filters to be useful."
I agree. That is why there are protections in bitcoin against many types of attacks against real DoS vectors. Op_returns don't present such a threat.
If they did, miners did not have an incentive to mine them because their nodes would crash and mining operations would be disrupted.
They are valid transactions you (and I for the matter) don't agree with but the economical incentive says it is profitable to mine them, and it causes a less far-reaching impact than doing such things in other ways. A filter that disrupts economic activity and has worse impacts than dropping it, is harmful overall.
Users can make whimsical choices and think they will virtue signal with filters but I estimate this is not going to be enough when facing economic reality, especially in the long run.