MrHodl's avatar
MrHodl MrHodl@nostrpurple.com 5 months ago
So what's next? Next we're going to bombarded on why Bitcoin needs to softfork to fight spam. Not a softfork to improve scale. Not a softfork to improve privacy. But a soft fork to fight spam. A battle that is designed to last forever. Spoooks

Replies (17)

waxwing's avatar
waxwing 5 months ago
I'd be against it but not very strongly, if it was specifically OP_RETURN. But yeah it's a slippery slope to banning endlessly. But I'd much rather be having *that* argument than the delusion we see today.
R's avatar
R 5 months ago
If we assume fiat/shitcoin issuers are spending several billion dollars a year to discredit the Bitcoin IETF rough consensus process, it all makes sense.
roll_the_dice's avatar
roll_the_dice 5 months ago
I don't understand why this whole thing wasn't nipped in the bud by just sticking with <=80byte op_return default relay policy. Makes zero sense.
El Rojo Jesus's avatar
El Rojo Jesus 5 months ago
Lol but softforking for scale isn't? At least there's spam, there's no demand for scale currently.
JackTheMimic's avatar
JackTheMimic 5 months ago
Just remove standardness from OP_RETURN, and the witness discount and economics solves spam. This isn't really that hard of a problem to solve.
Default avatar
ihsotas 5 months ago
Reality. Core isn’t a company. Bitcoin is anarchy, get used to it.
Leo Wandersleb's avatar
Leo Wandersleb leo@nostr.info 1 month ago
Spam is arguably the one thing Bitcoin solved from day one. If you abandone this premise, Bitcoin failed. If people pay more for spam than for a monetary network, Bitcoin failed. If that highly illegal spam can kill Bitcoin, Bitcoin failed. If we all care about all that BS, yes, Bitcoin won't fix fungibility and scalability.
↑