Hi Murch, thank you for putting out your argument.
What I don't understand is why the limit for op_return is being changed when filters are actually working. Yes they don't filter out everything but they do filter out most of it.
Then you have a couple of folks claiming that filters are useless and we should give up on them entirely because spammers could use out of bound transactions via services as slipstream by MARA to circumvent filters (which is right but also proves that filters are working pretty well since they wouldn't need to go out of bound otherwise).
I may be misrepresenting the opinion by individual core devs since I don't know what everyone said.
What puzzles me as well is the statement that transaction fees are enough to filter out spam. You might be right with this claim but I am not sold on it entirely.
As long as bitcoin evolves the way as projected and increases in global significance a lot more folks might want to spam the chain even though fees would be higher at that point the incentive for spamming and using more resources to do so would grow similarly.
In general I think spam is harmful and might lead to unintended consequences so I don't think we should give non monetary transactions more room and easier ways to use the protocol.
I said core seems compromised because they would not ship many "controversial" implementations in the past but this time when controversy is obvious as you can tell from the debate they don't care and ship anyways.
My technical skills are limited so I didn't know how to write this up in a shorter manner. I am very interested in your response.
leon_21 / leon
npub1pg…8x232
2025-05-20 06:07:44
in reply to nevent1q…82fj
Author Public Key
npub1pguq7clp57cqz5gh5hppady83ksgt7u2r8snvqdcvt978tgf9yas78x232Published at
2025-05-20 06:07:44Event JSON
{
"id": "a3fc1436f65c056c565f3921112ed0d0bc65ebbeafc5468396c30dd4ac0ee5c7",
"pubkey": "0a380f63e1a7b0015117a5c21eb4878da085fb8a19e13601b862cbe3ad09293b",
"created_at": 1747721264,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"1989034e56b8f606c724f45a12ce84a11841621aaf7182a1f6564380b9c4276b"
],
[
"p",
"426c37d185741a0fcfb74d04dbdee38d6125faeeaf69fa1aaa69172e8002a943"
],
[
"p",
"b8851a06dfd79d48fc325234a15e9a46a32a0982a823b54cdf82514b9b120ba1"
],
[
"p",
"83e818dfbeccea56b0f551576b3fd39a7a50e1d8159343500368fa085ccd964b"
],
[
"p",
"6a359852238dc902aed19fbbf6a055f9abf21c1ca8915d1c4e27f50df2f290d9"
],
[
"p",
"50d94fc2d8580c682b071a542f8b1e31a200b0508bab95a33bef0855df281d63"
],
[
"p",
"4ca484914ae2434465594011d448c073849b7b1570b17171cc967572dbec3b96"
],
[
"p",
"be41636e3e6d2fe99e065200dc8a9034f9128064fdcd39b75a6983cae55c4909"
],
[
"p",
"82341f882b6eabcd2ba7f1ef90aad961cf074af15b9ef44a09f9d2a8fbfbe6a2"
],
[
"p",
"3731e169d0b3816f4a4a9ac84c66aa423d4f4ea0f78b56a1df90609b85be0885"
],
[
"p",
"0a380f63e1a7b0015117a5c21eb4878da085fb8a19e13601b862cbe3ad09293b"
],
[
"p",
"95361a2b42a26c22bac3b6b6ba4c5cac4d36906eb0cfb98268681c45a301c518",
"wss://nostr.mom"
],
[
"p",
"3731e169d0b3816f4a4a9ac84c66aa423d4f4ea0f78b56a1df90609b85be0885",
"wss://nostr.einundzwanzig.space"
],
[
"e",
"2e1a943b99fb32891b5896e026a6188038dc66279a37f15169686b1ec5827253",
"wss://nostr.mom",
"reply",
"95361a2b42a26c22bac3b6b6ba4c5cac4d36906eb0cfb98268681c45a301c518"
],
[
"e",
"14e3687a002692a6a2b93549d5cc0a2713546403523d8396a24a7c638e4c5f88",
"wss://nostr.einundzwanzig.space",
"root",
"3731e169d0b3816f4a4a9ac84c66aa423d4f4ea0f78b56a1df90609b85be0885"
]
],
"content": "Hi Murch, thank you for putting out your argument.\nWhat I don't understand is why the limit for op_return is being changed when filters are actually working. Yes they don't filter out everything but they do filter out most of it. \nThen you have a couple of folks claiming that filters are useless and we should give up on them entirely because spammers could use out of bound transactions via services as slipstream by MARA to circumvent filters (which is right but also proves that filters are working pretty well since they wouldn't need to go out of bound otherwise).\nI may be misrepresenting the opinion by individual core devs since I don't know what everyone said.\nWhat puzzles me as well is the statement that transaction fees are enough to filter out spam. You might be right with this claim but I am not sold on it entirely.\nAs long as bitcoin evolves the way as projected and increases in global significance a lot more folks might want to spam the chain even though fees would be higher at that point the incentive for spamming and using more resources to do so would grow similarly.\nIn general I think spam is harmful and might lead to unintended consequences so I don't think we should give non monetary transactions more room and easier ways to use the protocol.\nI said core seems compromised because they would not ship many \"controversial\" implementations in the past but this time when controversy is obvious as you can tell from the debate they don't care and ship anyways.\n\nMy technical skills are limited so I didn't know how to write this up in a shorter manner. I am very interested in your response.",
"sig": "b49287f57cb51dd8de1b32b19862f34e6d7ba22a1a657b844aefcada675ff10e7e7f78752b1fbb74a4e7da54f02bf73e0df56c57359bf22238069c1868bd5a32"
}