It just shows that 80% of the bloat nowadays comes from OP_RETURN, as I already explained. You really missed the point on that one.
Btw, just a few years from now, our blocks will be systematically full of monetary transaction because of adoption. Do you think it will cause bitcoin to collapse, or to the least to centralize completely? Or, in your view, are non-monetary transactions the only ones that can cause a node to struggle? Because if full blocks are a threat to bitcoin, then mass-adoption is a threat to bitcoin too, isn't it? Then maybe we should make sure Bitcoin never expands and never growths, just like BIP110 proposes... :)
Replies (2)
I haven’t missed anything. The graphic just shows that:
a) when you have two buckets, spammers will abuse both.
b) if you close one, they’ll switch to the other, so you need to close both.
c) fees can’t outprice spam, bc there’s infinite demand for free data storage
> our blocks will be systematically full of monetary transaction because of adoption
Good, that’s the whole point of the debate: save the 36% space used by spam to accommodate more financial transactions. In this regard BIP110 is a de facto scaling solution.
Why can't fees out price spam.. Has anyone done the numbers on this? Do minimal fees eliminate more than 95% of the spam?
Some thoughts from another post:
