Are the miner fees really the only filter we need?

[PepeLapiu2]

So in this whole spam war, and for the last 5 years since this spam attack started, we've been told over and over that Bitcoin doesn't need any spam filters. That the miner fees are the only filter needed to filter out spam.

And this was used as an excuse for the last 5 years to do nothing about the growing spam on chain. And it was also used as one of the excuses to drop a spam filter with core 30.

"The fees are the only filter we need."

So we've been told for the last 5 years.

But is it even true?

Is there some magic smoke in the fees that somehow chases away only spammers but not actual real Bitcoin users?

The answer is absolutely not. The idea that fees are enough to weed out spam is absurd. We have been gaslighted for the last 5 years into believing an absolute lie.

Let's just look at the Segwit exploit for example, which is pretty much the most popular spam right now.

When I use Segwit, I usually get a 50% Segwit discount at best.

But when spammers cram their dickbutt.jpeg in Segwit, they routinely get a 75%+ discount. And here is an example of this:

https://mempool.space/tx/d8fcb4e1773dab015310c593f0612f0b9b029d24e01416f26414a357a2c13093

In the case above, the inscription got a 74.8% discount.

So if spammers routinely get a bigger discount than monetary Bitcoiners, what are the fees really filtering in the end?

Seriously, when spammers get a bigger discount than monetary users, who is getting filtered out by the fees?

I would submit that Satoshi understood that fees might not be enough to weed out spam. This is what Satoshi replied when confronted with the idea of Lady Gaga videos on the chain:

That's one of the reasons for transaction fees.  There are other things we can do if necessary.

So whenever we are told that the fees are the only filter we need, they are lying to us.

And when they tell us that the spam can't be stopped, and we might as well ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, we are again being lied to.

Run Knots friends, run BIP110

Cheers, Pepe

[wxxyrqa]

It can be said that commissions work as an economic filter, but it is important to remember that they cannot distinguish spam from legitimate transactions. It all happens very simply.If you paid more, you end up getting your share of the block.  Given this, we can conclude that in this case ordinary users suffer. In my opinion, it is better to ask the question differently, that is, the problem may not be in the fee, but in how the protocol processes transactions that differ from each other.

[CryptSafe]

It can be said that commissions work as an economic filter, but it is important to remember that they cannot distinguish spam from legitimate transactions. It all happens very simply.If you paid more, you end up getting your share of the block.  Given this, we can conclude that in this case ordinary users suffer. In my opinion, it is better to ask the question differently, that is, the problem may not be in the fee, but in how the protocol processes transactions that differ from each other.

This is just like the highest bidder takes it all. The higher the transaction fee, the faster the confirmation, as miners would be jostling to confirm transactions/mining of blocks, they would also accept higher fees also for whoever is willing to pay for it, and once that happens, the other normal transactions are neglected, hence you see the delay in confirmation when your fee is very low. They prioritize higher fees in most cases because they have a lot to benefit from such transactions.

[slaman29]

I don't know if anybody ever said fees is the only thing, like you pointed out satoshi said there are always other things.

But I'm not sure what you're trying to make the main point here. Are we saying we need to censor? Or just saying that spam should wait and be taxed? I like the second idea.

[PepeLapiu2]

This is just like the highest bidder takes it all.

You are not factoring in the Segwit discount. Real Bitcoin monetary transactions get a smaller Segwit discount than spam transactions that use the Segwit exploit. So a spam transaction that effectively pays less in fees will be more profitable to the miner than a monetary transaction of the same size.

I don't know if anybody ever said fees is the only thing

You never heard that "The miner fees are the filter"? That's what I have been told over and over for the last 5 years. The implication was that the miner fees should be the only filter. Which, as I already explained, is effectively filtering out legit Bitcoiners with smaller Segwit discount.

But I'm not sure what you're trying to make the main point here.

My point is that for the last 5 years, every time the nodes asked for something to be done about spam, the excuse to do nothing was that the fees are the filter, and anything else is either in effective or censorship.
And even when they decided to blow up a spam filter last year, they claimed it didn't work, it's censorship, and the fees are the only filter we need. Clearly we were gaslit.

Are we saying we need to censor?

Preventing spam on Bitcoin is not censorship. No more than not allowing a Christian preach in a Muslim or Jewish temple constitutes a breach of your freedom of religion. Bitcoin is money. You are free to use Bitcoin to buy a pancake or a jpeg. But neither your pancake nor your jpeg belong on the Bitcoin chain.

Or just saying that spam should wait and be taxed? I like the second idea.

If you want to make it harder for spammers on Bitcoin, you should run a Knots node, or even better and run a BIP110/UASF node.

[un_rank]

You are not factoring in the Segwit discount. Real Bitcoin monetary transactions get a smaller Segwit discount than spam transactions that use the Segwit exploit.

What do you mean segwit discount and exploit? Segwit addresses are available for anyone to use and they help to reduce the tx size. This is not an exploit but was a BIP to help lower the feerate.

Bitcoin is money. You are free to use Bitcoin to buy a pancake or a jpeg. But neither your pancake nor your jpeg belong on the Bitcoin chain.

It is a public chain and people should be allowed to do what they want on it whether or not they like it. The feerate means there is a cost to do what you like which eliminates a big percentage of spam that could have hit the network.

- Jay -

[Bastketsrus]

It can be said that commissions work as an economic filter, but it is important to remember that they cannot distinguish spam from legitimate transactions. It all happens very simply.If you paid more, you end up getting your share of the block.  Given this, we can conclude that in this case ordinary users suffer. In my opinion, it is better to ask the question differently, that is, the problem may not be in the fee, but in how the protocol processes transactions that differ from each other.

Good point. Fees don’t really tell spam from normal transactions, they just prioritize whoever pays more. That’s why it’s useful to understand fees, especially when sending BTC to places like bitcoinbetting.

[Satofan44]

It can be said that commissions work as an economic filter, but it is important to remember that they cannot distinguish spam from legitimate transactions. It all happens very simply.If you paid more, you end up getting your share of the block.  Given this, we can conclude that in this case ordinary users suffer. In my opinion, it is better to ask the question differently, that is, the problem may not be in the fee, but in how the protocol processes transactions that differ from each other.

This sounds like a smart argument on the surface, but if you dig deep into this you will realize that you could not be more wrong. How exactly do you plan to enforce this? How on a technical level is the protocol able to distinguish "legitimate transactions" whatever that means from "spam"? Here is a hint, it can't. This would lead to a cat and mouse game similarly as the one with direct filters, you didn't actually propose anything different at all except propose applying a filtering mechanism for fees. I as an attacker or a "spammer" can adapt my protocol's transactions to be in the same form and size to whatever you set as "legitimate transactions". In the end, all you would do is punish normal Bitcoin users because many types and shapes of transactions you would de-prioritize but you would not accomplish anything at all. Users should avoid participating in these subjects unless they have some basic knowledge in information theory.

Good point. Fees don’t really tell spam from normal transactions, they just prioritize whoever pays more. That’s why it’s useful to understand fees, especially when sending BTC to places like bitcoinbetting.

You can't differentiate spam from normal transactions using any mechanism that involves fees. I can easily update my protocol to make my "spam" look like normal transactions (whatever this is supposed to mean). What idiotic proposal will people who support these stupid ideas come up with then? Limit the number of transactions per address? Limit per 24 hours? As a last and desperate proposal, KYC per address to allow "normal transactions" from "real users"?