-
@ jimmysong
2025-05-19 20:15:34
> I realise it's not pleasant to put something you hate (data spam) and something you like (other people using bitcoin as a MoE) into the same category, but as far as technical impact on your node's operation, they really are fundamentally the same, affecting your node in the same way, subject to the same global limits, impacting the same global marketplace in the same way (ie the blockspace fee market), having the same solution (move the substance off chain so you're mostly not subject to the limits or fees; eg via lightning).
I agree with everything until that last clause. You can reduce spam by discouraging it. That's what we've been doing with non-standard OP_RETURNs and non-standard scripts and below-dust-limit outputs, which you don't have to do with legitimate transactions. I actually really like your analysis and the commonality in reducing on-chain transactions is some sort of layer two which settles at layer 1. That's a useful insight.
Where I think the reasoning goes wrong is that spammers don't have the same goal as you, to reduce their on-chain footprint and use off-chain protocols to make things efficient. The spammers specifically *want* to spam the chain and have been shown to be malicious in that regard, purposefully trolling Bitcoiners (like the stamps protocol, for example). So in a sense, thinking about making their protocols efficient is a waste of time. I really don't think they're interested because they could do the same stuff for way cheaper on almost every altcoin.
> Ceasing to forbid/discourage something isn't the same as encouraging it, and the continued implication that this is all about devs wanting to encourage spam continues to be unappreciated, unfair and incorrect.
That is the end effect, though, isn't it? Whatever your intentions may be, the end result is that more spam comes onto the network. Or maybe you'll deny this, in which case, we'll devolve into discussions about what might happen. But ultimately, I'm not inside your head and can't determine what your intentions are, I can only judge the practical effect this has. You said that you're prioritizing Bitcoin as a monetary network. The PR deprioritizes Bitcoin as a monetary network and your response seems to be that your intentions aren't to do that. OK, I guess? Would you rather have people question your competence instead of intent? Because the result is as clear as day that we'll see more spam and not less as a result of the PR. And when people like me say that, we get a lot of anger, insults and eventually, speculations about boogeymen that will do something worse if we don't agree to this PR.