Can you define "consensus" for me in this context please? (If some users want to send certain transactions -- *even if* dickbutts in OP_RETURNs -- doesn't that automatically imply there is no consensus to block this?)

> 1. But this is making assumptions on why other people run nodes, right? Yes. The specific assumption is: some people run a node with a mempool to help relay some other transactions on the network, but do not want to extend that help to spam transactions. > I don't think you can honestly argue that 1MB of OP_RETURNS is worse for the performance of your node than 1MB (or more) of data in any other part of a block? If the data was identical, and if I was excluded from using the argument about base space being more valuable than witness space (to be considered in the next paragraph), then I would not object to the statement that 1MB of OP_RETURNS do no further harm to a node's performance than the same data in another part of a block. > Do you think spam will persistently outbid monetary transactions for block space? I do not think so because I do not think I am a reliable predictor of the future. But if I thought I could reliably predict that nothing will change, then I would also predict that spam will often outbid monetary transactions in the future, because I think they often do so in the present.

Ok I find using the term "consensus" a bit confusing in this context, since that could also be just one or two guys :) What you're really saying is that anyone should be free to run whatever filters they want, which I not only agree with but also matches factual reality right now. (People decide what node software to run.) I believe it would take some ~95% of nodes to filter certain transactions before it meaningfully stifles their ability to make it to miners over the p2p network. Is that what you have in mind when you say you'd ideally want users to prevent what ends up in blocks? (To be clear my question is about the method-- not about the exact number as long as you agree it's a reasonable approximation; it could also be 90% or 99% as far as I'm concerned.)

What you're describing is a centralizing effect. (Less stale blocks and/or more fees for larger miners versus smaller ones.) That's not a concern for you? (Why not?)

When the block size limit was replaced for the block weight limit (and therefore de facto increased from 1MB to 4MB worst case), the general consensus seemed to be that that was acceptable. And if you're running a Segwit-compatible node, I'd say that is in fact what you opted in to. If you think increasing the block size/weight limit was a mistake (not an unreasonanle position imo) I'd say the solution is to decrease it altogether. (Or maybe run a pre-Segwit node...) But let's leave that aside, at least for a moment? You blame the spammers and these miners for the centralizing effect on mining. Fair enough. But the spammers probably don't care, and these miners even benefit. So what does blaming them solve? (Or is that maybe beside the point; are you not interested in finding a solution for this?)