Indeed, I don't know what's your point is.
My point is that saying high fees is a spam mechanism means, if you can pay, it's not spam. If you can't pay, its spam.
So, if you can't afford to self-custody and transact on-chain, you are a spammer.
That's why I have a problem with that.
"So, if you can't afford to self-custody and transact on-chain, you are a spammer. "
Thats the stupidest thing I've ever read, if you aren't aligned with the success of Bitcoin just say so
Nop. I own Bitcoin and I see it succeeding.
Saying fees is Bitcoin's spamming mechanism is saying if you can't afford the onchain fee, you are a spammer.
nah you are either purposefully or ignorantly unaligned with the success of Bitcoin as a network, you are voicing the same point of view as BSV maximalists https://twitter.com/GhostofMaplHodl/status/1735700193931092190
Have you read Matt's note: "Bitcoin has a brilliant spam mechanism: transaction fees."
That means, fees are a filter for undesirable transactions (spam), which could be payment for goods or services that someone can't send because the fee is too high.
Is it OK to say to that person you can't pay the fee, it's spam? I don't agree with that statement. This has nothing to do with Bitcoin.
If you agree with Matt, that's fine, no need to get contentious.
You are completely disregarding the base point, someone overpaying is not spam, a bunch of people overpaying out of necessity due to miner out of band bribes on unstandard transactions that are below the dust limit are very clearly spam. Average users are being censored from using the chain normally, the value proposition of Bitcoin is declining. And the solution is extremely simple. Arguing otherwise is arguing in favor of competitors like craig wright who is behind BSV ordinals and suing several BTC developers for contributing to open source projects.
This is the best layman argument I’ve seen against ordinals. In general I’m against censoring transactions. But you’ve give me something to think about.
I'm disagreeing with the choice of words. I never said overpaying was spam. I agree with you overpaying is not spam.
So is the argument that high fee dust tractions weigh down the chain bringing about centralization of node runners and therefore Bitcoin? This weight being added faster than compression improvements?
I am being a bit paranoid and edgy to suggest this will kill Bitcoin, Bitcoin is very clearly stronger than most of us know. However I do believe complacency against these issues will hinder the market adoption due to the way it sacrifices low hanging fruit like normal l1 fee markets.
But ser, how do we define “normal”? It’s so subjective. We have much recency bias here.
Normal fee market exists when transactions are not being centralized through mining bribery. Ordinal protocols force users to go this route to get their transaction settled at all. Limiting datacarriersize spam simply removes any ability for a market to exist around excess fee transactions. Mining pools win users lose. A normal market is where users actually are considered important for Bitcoin
Thanks ser. I’m really trying to wrap my head around this because I’m on the other side of this from a lot of people I respect. Trying to understand and appreciate your responses.
Aren’t all transaction fees bribes? Aren’t we all bribing? And isn’t anyone interacting with the blockchain other than miners a user/merchant? Is the issue here they are not users of its payments value prop and are instead users of another attribute of the chain that payment users do not value?
"Bitcoin has a brilliant spam mechanism: transaction fees."
For example:
The transaction fee is $25, Bitcoin spam filter is set at $25 dollars. Can't pay the fee, spam. Can pay the fee, not spam.
They are introducing fiat out of band risks now though, so now ordinal kingpins can accept bribes in fiat off chain for on chain preference. this inflates the overall sat per byte and gives ordinal users a cheaper experience at the expense of people using the regular Bitcoins
Oddbean new post about login | logout