OverviewExploreTrending
Nostr Archives
OverviewExploreTrending
Gary Woodfine2h ago
Yeah i get your point, . The problem is that most points can be argued in both way and communities often get lost in nuance and argue which side has the most correct take. You can get lost on point of what is and what isn’t spam from the perspective of every side. In my opinion, I believe in the most ruthless point is , if it’s not a financial transaction it’s spam . There is no need for a block to contain anything other than record financial value passing from one entity to another in the simplest possible.
💬 1 replies

Thread context

Root: d838790beef0…

Replying to: 10265d1c2f2e…

Replies (1)

Sean2h ago
Sure, but I still believe that censorship is bad at any level, the knock on affect is always net negative. The on-chain/base layer is slow and expensive and lacks privacy—the layer 2 models are fixing those issues. Bitcoin as a settlement is always going to work but adding a form of censorship filtering mech won’t play out well for l2’s. If you introduce filtering at L1, you're not just blocking "spam" — you're creating a precedent where miners or node operators decide what's valid beyond consensus rules.
0000 sats