Will the fee market push away spammers?

[PepeLapiu2]

This is the ridiculous rhetoric we have been feed for the last decade or so, as spam keeps getting worst and worst. The idea that higher miner fees caused by the increased traffic from spammers will somehow discourage them from spamming Bitcoin.

Really? How has that worked so far? You think we are getting more or less spam and garbage than we were getting 10 years ago? 5 years ago?

Can someone please explain to me by what mechanism will higher miner fees discourage spammers but not bitcoiners?

"Let them do it, they'll get tired or run out of funds, eventually" they said.

But this is absurd. Bitcoiners were not sending or receiving any Bitcoin during the last halvening when spammers caused miner fees to sky rocket to $200 for 1 block confirm. But the spammers kept sending. Entire blocks were filled with garbage.

It's only the bitcoiners who were discouraged by higher fees. Spammers and scammers who make money at this are not discouraged by $200 fees when they make $500 per transaction. Only bitcoiners are discouraged.

I know, I was one of them. I told my landlord I can't pay him until if/when the fees go down.

The people who told you miner fees will push out spammers are the same people who have not made any filter available for us for the last 8 years, the same people who are trying to blow wide open the op_return filter.

And not to mention that this horrible spam makes us look like a joke, a retarded memecoin.

Join the fight, run a Knots node:
https://bitcoinknots.org/

[headingnorth]

Well it's a pretty stupid assertion in a long list of nonstop stupid assertions spewing from the Core people.

If you can dump an NFT or inscription on someone for $200 (or more) you aren't going to care
about a $20 to $40 miner fee. Other than all the nodes running Knots another potential solution
to the problem of Core malware might be a soft fork as Matt Kratter suggested.

If you want to prevent someone from doing something you don't want them to do,
you don't remove the guardrails that stop them taking the action and just hope that they
are too poor to afford the $40 fee to do it. You are actually wanting them to take the nefarious action
because you can collect the nice fees and make money from it.  

They like to pay lip service to the claim of wanting to protect bitcoin from spam but their actions prove the exact opposite.

[rat03gopoh]

These spammers simply believe that what they call NFT ordinals will be worth millions of dollars. So, it's understandable that their motivation is stronger than their ability to pay the fee. If we learn from the NFT hype on Ethereum, I believe the higher fee will further confirm the value of their campaign (the promotional appeal), not repel them.

[satosmoto]

Join the fight, run a Knots node:
https://bitcoinknots.org/

I think ultimately if Core won't reverse this controversial changes than Knots would have to make a hard-fork in the future. In such a case the new Knots coin comparing to BCH could actually gain more popularity than BTC. Majority of Bitcoin users and nodes seeks for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle security regardless of commercial agenda from miners and wallet providers who always prefer short-time profit over long-time stability (in the worst case this bad/ignorant actors can just switch to Knots or something else without hesitation and their business will roll as usual). The digital gold - the most secure FINANCIAL ledger in the world cannot allow anymore to facilitate new types of attack vectors on itself (from both technical and political point of view) - this is madness. What's next? ...BTC switching to PoS and merging with ETH? wtf? The digital gold by design has to be boring simple and crystal transparent to be consider truly secure and reliable, otherwise it's just yet another shitcoin.

[PepeLapiu2]

These spammers simply believe that what they call NFT ordinals will be worth millions of dollars. So, it's understandable that their motivation is stronger than their ability to pay the fee. If we learn from the NFT hype on Ethereum, I believe the higher fee will further confirm the value of their campaign (the promotional appeal), not repel them.

This kind of retarded logic is what got us in this mess in the first place.

A locked door does more than just keep intruders out, it sends the message "you are not welcome here"

But based on your logic, if we make it cheaper for them, or even free, that will cause them to go away.

This sort of "harm reduction" policy is what caused me, and many others like me to leave the homeless infested West coast of Canada and USA.

Sorry pal, watching a problem get worst and worst while I stand there with my hands in my pockets and my dick flapping in the wind, that has been proven not to work.

The most simple rule of economics tells us that if you make something more expensive, those who can't afford it won't buy it.

I think ultimately if Core won't reverse this controversial changes than Knots would have to make a hard-fork in the future.

Before a hard fork, a soft fork should be attempted, and before a soft fork, we should see if enough people switch away from repulsive and complaisant core.

I think there is a slim possibility that at some point Gloria Zhao will have to take a stand, clean house, and send home all those who went along with the absurd op_return filter blow up. She might even have to resign if she was part of it. Make an announcement that from now on core will take an aggressive stand against spam, and release the list of all the core fund providers.

Who's paying for all this shit? Asking for a friend.

They like to pay lip service to the claim of wanting to protect bitcoin from spam but their actions prove the exact opposite.

Ex-F**KING-act-F**KING-ly!!
Kids nowadays call it gas lighting. Old guys like me just call it politician talk.