Nostr Archives

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

💬 15 replies

Replies (15)

waxwing155d 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.

0000 sats

Jameson Lopp155d ago

You can just ignore them. You don't owe anyone your attention.

0000 sats

Bfgreen155d ago

Rule 1.

0000 sats

Psilocyberbull141d ago

Core summarized 😂

0000 sats

MrHodl33d ago

Not possible. BitCoin Drama is what keeps things interesting

0000 sats

R155d 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.

0000 sats

roll_the_dice141d 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.

0000 sats

El Rojo Jesus141d ago

Lol but softforking for scale isn't? At least there's spam, there's no demand for scale currently.

0000 sats

JackTheMimic141d 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.

0000 sats

Leo Wandersleb21d 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.

0000 sats