"Working to Rule" meets the timechain.
The issue isn't whether graffiti "destroys" Bitcoin — it's about who gets to decide what the timechain is for.
Like in that old Soviet allegory, workers were told to produce 16 tons of nails — so they made one 16-ton nail. Technically fulfilled the quota, utterly useless in reality. That’s *working to rule*. Today, some miners do the same: exploiting ambiguity in the “contract” (consensus rules) to pad blocks with junk that pays well short-term but degrades the network’s long-term utility.
The Core policy change removing the 80-byte OP_RETURN relay limit doesn't break consensus. But it does signal a shift — one that aligns relay behavior with miner incentives and weakens node-level filtering.
If nodes are the boss, as GrassFedBitcoin (nprofile…566r) laid out in https://youtu.be/vz46-6K6_U8 then policy matters. What nodes don’t relay, rarely gets mined. Mempool policy is a soft expression of intent — like saying: “We want a monetary network. We expect you not to abuse blockspace for rent-seeking graffiti.”
And if MARA or any other miner “works to rule,” including what users don’t want relayed, then they’ve stopped cooperating — and we should stop routing their blocks.
Bitcoin doesn’t need perfection. But it needs communication between nodes and miners — not silent contracts abused in bad faith.
Andrey
npub1an…l8jd4
2025-05-25 16:12:39
in reply to nevent1q…59ke
Author Public Key
npub1andyx2xqhwffeg595snk9a8ll43j6dvw5jzpljm5yjm3qync7peqzl8jd4Published at
2025-05-25 16:12:39Event JSON
{
"id": "95e52519da490c77caf3b114dae0a021afd7907ffc2d57896907ddd8adedd62b",
"pubkey": "ecda4328c0bb929ca285a42762f4fffd632d358ea4841fcb7424b7101278f072",
"created_at": 1748189559,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"74ffc51cc30150cf79b6cb316d3a15cf332ab29a38fec9eb484ab1551d6d1856",
"wss://nos.lol/",
"mention"
],
[
"p",
"eab0e756d32b80bcd464f3d844b8040303075a13eabc3599a762c9ac7ab91f4f"
],
[
"e",
"2896ae0f40596f9ab408ef5469b22cc18a2b6afbbee5d1275f34a299c4f2c413",
"",
"root",
"eab0e756d32b80bcd464f3d844b8040303075a13eabc3599a762c9ac7ab91f4f"
]
],
"content": "\"Working to Rule\" meets the timechain.\n\nThe issue isn't whether graffiti \"destroys\" Bitcoin — it's about who gets to decide what the timechain is for.\n\nLike in that old Soviet allegory, workers were told to produce 16 tons of nails — so they made one 16-ton nail. Technically fulfilled the quota, utterly useless in reality. That’s *working to rule*. Today, some miners do the same: exploiting ambiguity in the “contract” (consensus rules) to pad blocks with junk that pays well short-term but degrades the network’s long-term utility.\n\nThe Core policy change removing the 80-byte OP_RETURN relay limit doesn't break consensus. But it does signal a shift — one that aligns relay behavior with miner incentives and weakens node-level filtering.\n\nIf nodes are the boss, as nostr:nprofile1qqs8fl79rnpsz5x00xmvkvtd8g2u7ve2k2dr3lkfadyy4v24r4k3s4sppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qy08wumn8ghj7mn0wd68yttsw43zuam9d3kx7unyv4ezumn9wshscy566r laid out in https://youtu.be/vz46-6K6_U8 then policy matters. What nodes don’t relay, rarely gets mined. Mempool policy is a soft expression of intent — like saying: “We want a monetary network. We expect you not to abuse blockspace for rent-seeking graffiti.”\n\nAnd if MARA or any other miner “works to rule,” including what users don’t want relayed, then they’ve stopped cooperating — and we should stop routing their blocks.\n\nBitcoin doesn’t need perfection. But it needs communication between nodes and miners — not silent contracts abused in bad faith. ",
"sig": "deb8c421801e7a4d08c30ee3d5d1a986ee5ea4e9db84144a40024dd846c42ad84a5595ded2e54597370b6afe9b9ea083e4b5b69c8215dac061c67123bac33226"
}