there is an excellent technical reason to bring up CSAM: it is a clear example of why spam is harmful, which is a principle tenet in the fight against it. Very often our ideological opponents say "there is nothing WRONG with spam" (e.g. here: ) or issue challenges like "you can't DEFINE spam" (e.g. here: https://x.com/L0RINC/status/1967404819716694518) CSAM is an obvious way to counter these statements/challenges

And there is no way to get there but a think of the children? It is an argument designed to destroy rational thought about the problem. Literally 101 how to make the other person reactionary instead of reasoning. It also makes you reactionary instead of reasoning. There is a problem to solve, let's both of us turn off half our brains and devolve into ideological demagogues. That always helps.

I like how you are still dancing around the topic, refusing to address it. Pathetic human being.

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.

What dancing? My entire argument is that knots humpers need to knock of their victory lap because they have not solved the problem. Your knots node is gonna serve the same CSAM block content as core for all eternity. Somehow I'm the pathetic human being for wanting that fixed instead of joining the cult? Fuck all the way off.

What's this solution you suddenly have that's better than the option to use filters?

You never mentioned anything of the sort before. You're so full of shit.

And this argument was about mempool policy. You're not even worth talking to with how you evade.

You are evading the very real issue of serving block content by bragging about your mempool. A transient problem with a bandaid but a permanent problem remains. Maybe you should have read what I wrote in this thread at least before calling names. You are wrong to say I didn't say that and anyone who can read can see you didn't bother. I'm not a dev but I can see the problem. As long as knots fanboys are celebrating solving a problem they haven't solved and core devs don't GAF no one is even looking or trying to find a real solution. So I bust my ass trying to raise the issue and all I get is morons on both sides calling me names and dodging the issue.

I didn't say I solved the goddamn problem in any kind of final way. This issue is about mempool sovereignty. It is NOT about a complete solution to spam. Core are being intellectually dishonest and subverting mempool sovereignty, so that takes precedence in the goals of the clued in and responsible among us Knots fans. I never claimed to have all of the answers. You are probably projecting your own arrogance or grouping me in with people I have little in common with. A real solution to the problem is secondary to the immediate threat that is posed by Core's bullshit. You would be wise to actually engage intellectually with individuals like myself. I have given you the same consideration you gave me, and then some. You can go on assuming bad faith, or you can grow the fuck up and realize there's more to people's goals than just trying to shut you up. It's not all about you. I happen to have very serious reasons to prioritize what I do, but I am open to discussing long term solutions for later down the line, like a consensus change.