GLACA on Nostr: Let’s address each point with accuracy—not emotion Mr.TeslaLiberty: 1. “If ...

Let’s address each point with accuracy—not emotion Mr.TeslaLiberty:

1. “If filters don’t do anything, why remove them?”
Because they do something—but not what’s being claimed.
They don’t stop inscriptions. They don’t reduce blockspace usage.
They merely delay transactions, increase bandwidth and CPU usage for filtering nodes, and fracture relay compatibility across the network.
Once those transactions are mined—and they are—your node downloads and verifies them anyway.
That’s wasted effort. It’s fragmentation with no gain.

2. “There’s no consensus on removing filters.”
Correct. That’s why this is a policy debate, not a consensus rule change.
No one’s “pushing” anything—this is an open proposal.
But let’s be honest: standardness policy should evolve with usage and reality, not remain frozen in fear of non-financial transactions.

3. “Filters make it harder for spam to confirm.”
Temporarily—yes.
But only because filtered transactions must route through fewer nodes.
That’s not censorship—it’s network friction.
And it comes at a cost: inconsistent mempool views, reduced propagation efficiency, and greater miner reliance on centralized relay networks.
It hurts decentralization more than it helps.

4. “Inscriptions are stupid. I want to block them.”
That’s your choice—and it’s respected.
But subjective dislike of how someone uses blockspace isn’t a technical argument.
Inscriptions follow consensus rules and pay fees.
That makes them valid by definition—not by preference.
Bitcoin doesn’t judge use cases. It enforces rules.

5. “Stop saying valid transactions.”
Let’s be precise. A valid transaction is one that conforms to Bitcoin’s consensus rules—signature checks, input validity, fee thresholds, etc.
Calling something “spam” because you dislike its purpose does not make it invalid.
Your email analogy breaks down because email lacks a fee market.
In Bitcoin, spam is filtered economically, not morally—if a transaction pays the fee and fits the rules, it clears. That’s the whole model.

Bitcoin’s strength is in neutrality, incentives, and permissionless access.
If you want a system where subjective intent determines validity, that’s not Bitcoin—that’s gatekeeping.
Consensus rules are the boundary.
Fee markets are the filter.
Everything else is preference.