ExploreTrendingAnalytics
Nostr Archives
ExploreTrendingAnalytics
Fargo4d ago
My point was that bitcoin should still function as intended even if blocks are full. If it doesn’t, we need smaller blocks. Look I see your point that spam is a strain on the network and I agree, but this is in an environment where fees are less than 1 sat/vbyte. It’s not surprising fees aren’t outpricing spam. Censorship of the network is a short sighted solution to a problem that was already solved in the design of the protocol with fee market & blocksize limit. If bitcoin becomes a valuable monetary network the market will solve the spam problem naturally.
💬 1 replies

Thread context

Root: a90f348e3a74…

Replying to: 0528d0942266…

Replies (1)

Tauri4d ago
> Censorship of the network is a short sighted solution to a problem that was already solved in the design of the protocol with fee market & blocksize limit. - it’s not censorship, filters enforce rate limits, not content moderation. they have always worked like that and never been called censorship until core propagandists and spam apologists started spinning that narrative - fees and Blocksize limit were only part of the spam solution, the rest was handled by policy and thanks to core, policy is now serving the opposite purpose that was originally created for
0000 sats