Not demonizing - making jokes about it. It's a bad solution and not worth forking over. If we find a real solution to spam then I'm down to fork
It’s not cool to make fun of the plebs who are trying to prevent Bitcoin becoming a shitshow, and I’m getting tired of the Bitcoin LARPers who are anti BIP-110 without reading the BIP or because they don’t like Luke or because it’s not going to perfectly stop spam. It’s not perfect but at least it’s a step in the right direction that buys us a year to devise better solutions. You don’t need to like Luke - just review what the code changes actually do.
The propaganda from Core is that fees paid to miners will fix this, and stopping non-financial data is “censorship”. Engage your brain for a minute and consider why node running (which is unpaid) wouldn’t become centralized as costs and legal risks increase as a result of spam. Also - it’s objectively not “censorship” to mitigate non-financial data. It doesn’t limit or censor financial transactions, just spam.
Then consider who pays the influencers and why they’re anti BIP-110. It’s sooo disappointing to see Bitcoiners seriously believing influencers who are paid by shit-coiners, suit-coiners and VCs.
The propaganda from Core is that fees paid to miners will fix this, and stopping non-financial data is “censorship”. Engage your brain for a minute and consider why node running (which is unpaid) wouldn’t become centralized as costs and legal risks increase as a result of spam. Also - it’s objectively not “censorship” to mitigate non-financial data. It doesn’t limit or censor financial transactions, just spam.
Then consider who pays the influencers and why they’re anti BIP-110. It’s sooo disappointing to see Bitcoiners seriously believing influencers who are paid by shit-coiners, suit-coiners and VCs.
