https://www.therage.co/leaked-luke-dashjr-bitcoin-hardfork/
This is the sort of thing that anti-censorship and pro-privacy proponents such as myself have been saying is the logical path of filtering proponents. Filtering doesn't work for its stated goals-- if the the traffic source is willing to pay (which all current 'spam' is quite willing to pay given prevailing feerates) then policy rules don't block it. The obvious *following step* is invasive centralizing steps like coercing miners to block transactions based on legal threats and deploying trusted-third-party mechanisms to allow editing past blocks.
Slippery slope fallacy is only a fallacy when there is no good reason to believe the progression will continue. In this case, it will obviously continue because some default policy stuff cannot achieve the stated goals.
Luke's proposals in that article, for whatever it's worth, are exactly what Calvin Ayre and Craig Wright were demanding from Bitcoin developers: changes to allow replacement of transaction content based on trusted signatures or likewise -- and we faced over a billion dollars on account of refusing to implement their backdoors. Well some developers, Luke did make a public offer to them to implement their changes in exchange for payment-- a fact that burned us a little in the litigation. To think that others will go along with such things now is simply insane.
NFT/shitcoin/etc. traffic is lame, but it's clear that its usually fairly well managed by transaction fees through the market for block capacity. The occasional flare ups and residual traffic are annoying but are the costs of an open system which we should all gladly accept because the alternative is a "bitcoin" that has little reason to exist.
This is the sort of thing that anti-censorship and pro-privacy proponents such as myself have been saying is the logical path of filtering proponents. Filtering doesn't work for its stated goals-- if the the traffic source is willing to pay (which all current 'spam' is quite willing to pay given prevailing feerates) then policy rules don't block it. The obvious *following step* is invasive centralizing steps like coercing miners to block transactions based on legal threats and deploying trusted-third-party mechanisms to allow editing past blocks.
Slippery slope fallacy is only a fallacy when there is no good reason to believe the progression will continue. In this case, it will obviously continue because some default policy stuff cannot achieve the stated goals.
Luke's proposals in that article, for whatever it's worth, are exactly what Calvin Ayre and Craig Wright were demanding from Bitcoin developers: changes to allow replacement of transaction content based on trusted signatures or likewise -- and we faced over a billion dollars on account of refusing to implement their backdoors. Well some developers, Luke did make a public offer to them to implement their changes in exchange for payment-- a fact that burned us a little in the litigation. To think that others will go along with such things now is simply insane.
NFT/shitcoin/etc. traffic is lame, but it's clear that its usually fairly well managed by transaction fees through the market for block capacity. The occasional flare ups and residual traffic are annoying but are the costs of an open system which we should all gladly accept because the alternative is a "bitcoin" that has little reason to exist.
I'm starting to believe that all the drama, and the current narrative of the anti-censorship crowd vs. the filter boys might merely be a "Red-Herring" to distract everyone from the actual motivation behind Knots' current move.
- There might be entities out there who want to fork Bitcoin away from the Core Developers. It's probably the same as the situation during 2017 when individuals behind major businesses, exchanges and miners signed the New York Agreement, WHICH they decided to hard fork Bitcoin to 2MB blocks behind closed doors.
