OverviewExploreTrending
Nostr Archives
OverviewExploreTrending
Donutpanic29d ago
Censorship on chain level – Who gets to define "spam"? Breaks Bitcoin's core neutrality & permissionless ethos. No content-policing in the base layer. UASF chain-split risk – Tiny signaling (~2-3% nodes), forced activation = 2017-style fork war redux. Economic suicide for noobs & hodlers. Slippery slope to protocol capture – Ban inscriptions today, privacy coins or "bad" txs tomorrow. Turns sound money into politicized shitcoin ruleset.
💬 1 replies

Replies (1)

77fc628…3e877229d ago
We should not be arguing about this. Spammers say you can’t define “spam”. It’s not that difficult- if you need to attach large amounts of arbitrary data, or hide it in massive amounts of unspendable “dust” outputs, then it’s not a financial transaction, and belongs somewhere else that’s not on the bitcoin blockchain. I agree there’s a bit of a slippery slope here - like how side-chains anchor on the base layer blockchain, and we should periodically reconsider how much arbitrary data is needed for financially adjacent use-cases.
0000 sats