Fargo

So you are saying that these spammers will NOT be deterred by increased monetary costs but WILL be deterred by the inconvenience of splitting their spam into multiple transactions. That’s just a strange position to take.

2026-03-15 01:54:33 CET

- reply

Sure it was. If fees were higher people wouldn’t want to bear the cost of spamming on chain. They would use cheaper alternatives

2026-03-15 01:47:52 CET

- reply

Don’t tell me you can’t get simple definitions right either 🤦‍♂️

2026-03-15 01:47:07 CET

- reply

Right, but immutability is referring to transaction finality. Meaning you can confidently transact peer to peer without intermediaries and without fear of the transaction being reversed or changed. v30 did nothing to this feature of bitcoin.

2026-03-15 00:24:48 CET

- reply

Do you know what immutability means? v30 did absolutely nothing to the scarcity or immutability of bitcoin

2026-03-14 23:30:42 CET

- reply

Bitcoin breaks with the removal of the default op_return limit on the reference client, is that what you are saying?

2026-03-14 20:39:06 CET

- reply

And what is so prohibitive of using multiple transactions to spam when the fee market is non-existent?

2026-03-14 06:53:50 CET

- reply

You do realize that spammers can circumvent rate limits by broadcasting multiple transactions, right?

2026-03-13 17:08:32 CET

- reply

Again, fee market is the only effective rate limit

2026-03-13 17:07:51 CET

- reply

What rate limit are we really talking about when fees are less than 1 sat/vbyte?

2026-03-13 15:04:49 CET

- reply

My point was that bitcoin should still function as intended even if blocks are full. If it doesn’t, we need smaller blocks. Look I see your point that spam is a strain on the network and I agree, but this is in an environment where fees are less than 1 sat/vbyte. It’s not surprising fees aren’t outpricing spam. Censorship of the network is a short sighted solution to a problem that was already solved in the design of the protocol with fee market & blocksize limit. If bitcoin becomes a valuable monetary network the market will solve the spam problem naturally.

2026-03-12 09:15:55 CET

- reply

1) isn’t related to OP but agree paper bitcoin = bad
2 & 3) again, blocksize limit. Are you suggesting that blocks should be smaller?

2026-03-11 14:09:06 CET

- reply

Dude haven’t you been in bitcoin for awhile? This post makes it sound like you never understood the value prop that was still very clearly explained when I started paying attention to the space. Bitcoin’s value comes from the fact that (1) it can’t be diluted. 21M. And (2) I can easily run a node to verify bitcoin sent to me and broadcast bitcoin I want to spend without any intermediary. Nothing you’ve just complained about has to do with that. And I’m not sure if you are misunderstanding op_return or what but can you explain how the recent change affects bandwidth, ram, or storage for noderunners? I know for a fact the block size limit prevents storage concerns but open to your opinion on bandwidth and ram, though I’m fairly confident the impact there is trivial.

2026-03-07 17:52:55 CET

- reply

How exactly was the world right side up in the 19th century?

2026-02-25 16:37:01 CET

- reply

This post is about a mining pool though.

2026-02-24 14:13:32 CET

- reply

It has to be by definition because they only accept a subset of transactions

2026-02-24 14:11:54 CET

- reply

The mempool is empty bruv

2026-02-24 14:09:33 CET

- reply

Did you increase your stack selling into bitcoin cash? You think there will be another opportunity like this with BIP110 or is this time around gonna be peanuts in comparison?

2024-12-15 19:54:16 CET

- reply

Nostr course?? Pls share