Damus

Recent Notes

note1r8vna...
Lunchnet profile picture
So your argument is nobody uses the chain so we need to remove filters to make way for these new L2s? Doesn't make sense. Plus you can just hash things into the existing 80 byte limit to anchor anything you might want.

And the part about mining centralization is a psyop. Miners will compete for out of band spam transactions and spammers will pay a fee premium because they can't get it relayed any other way. It would actually help the long tail of small miners who'd mine spam for cheaper than the big miners would because they'd take longer. The fee premium also helps spammers run out of money faster.

This is nothing but money trying to turn bitcoin into ethereum.
note1xpvrd...
Lunchnet profile picture
His reasoning is wrong. An external fee market will develop among miners with spammers paying a premium over the mempool fee because it can't get relayed any other way. It could actually further decentralize mining because some small 1% miner could charge say a 1% premium vs say Foundry taking a 10% fee. Patient spammers will take it and wait a day for a block. Filtering this way will accelerate spammers running out of money. As with everything in bitcoin, sticking to your principles is the path to victory.
note16453d...
Lunchnet profile picture
No because miners will scam the scammers by charging a premium to mine their transactions the network disapproves of. The bigger the miner the larger the premium. Subject spammers to THAT fee market. Filters work.
note1f96h0...
Lunchnet profile picture
Shitcoiners will stream into these covenants like you wouldn’t believe, and guess who will be more than happy to oblige them, miners. Then you need a server farm and huge bandwidth to mine and now it’s effectively an unlimited block size system. I’m starting to think covenants are a psyop to get us to break bitcoin. I’d take a modest blocksize increase over covenants; that and zero sync would be much healthier.