Questions for Greg Maxwell

[PepeLapiu]

I think it's fundamental:  the resource needs to be limit in supply to control operating costs and to drive income for security.  Free market action turns that into a market.  If someone is outbidding what you're willing to pay that is a problem for you but it's also a success for the system.

Here Greg is taking the long winded approach of saying "the miner fees are the filter".
Implicit to that is the idea that miner fees should be the only filter.
But Satoshi said this about spam:

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

First Question:
Do you disagree with Satoshi? Do you think miner fees should be the only measure against spam?

The vast majority of monetary users get around 50% Segwit discount. Here is a typical Segwit monetary transaction:
https://mempool.space/tx/7061b343aa324b2d115a3a1447bf7ba4d3454197ca8666634c2ef29994317cf9
But ordinal spammers most often get a 75% discount. Here is a typical ordinal transaction:
https://mempool.space/tx/fc902cae68e52e7adbb03f5f95adca177dd5f27ab562992f47e05cea5def608e

Second question:
Given that ordinals pay half as much in miner fees with a 75% discount, versus a 50% discount for most monetary users, who are the fees really filtering out here?

On my profile, you wrote the following:

Spamming Bitcoin talk with repeative false claims promoting bip 110, creates self moderated threads promoting his position and removes posts that discredit his points and locks threads and makes new ones when the discussion doesn't go in his direction.

I opened a thread here attempting to discuss the pros and cons of BIP110:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5578079.0
This threat was locked, not by me, but by the forum censorship Nazis.

So I re-opened a new thread with the same subject here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5579484.0

In that thread, I made it clear in OP that my previous thread was locked against my will by the forum censorship Nazis. That thread was locked within 24 hours. Again, not by me, but by the forum censorship Nazis. And they also deleted all the comments on that thread who were agreeing with me. So if you read the tread, I look like some kind of lone nut nobody agrees with.

So I opened a 3rd attempt here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5579958.0
That thread remains unlocked, for now. And I made it clear again in OP that the previous 2 threads were locked, not by me, but by the censorship Nazis.

Furthermore, I made it clear in OP that any disrespectful post would be deleted. You called me stupid, and so I deleted that post and invited you to repost it in a more respectful manner. That was the first and only post I deleted on any of my threads anywhere on this forum.

Here achow101 thread pinned at the top of this section:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5571154.0

You will notice that 12 of the posts from 12 users on that thread were deleted by achow101. And I have it on good authority that all those who saw their post deleted are in disagreement with core's direction taken with core 30 spamware.

Third Question:
Given that achow101 censors 12x as many posts as I do, will you commit to also post a negative comment on achow101's profile?

[(BTC)]

Here achow101 thread pinned at the top of this section:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5571154.0

You will notice that 12 of the posts from 12 users on that thread were deleted by achow101. And I have it on good authority that all those who saw their post deleted are in disagreement with core's direction taken with core 30 spamware.

Third Question:
Given that achow101 censors 12x as many lists as I do, will you commit to also post a negative comment on achow101's profile?

The thread you are referencing: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5571154.0, is archived at LoyceV's webpage.
It's full deletion history is here: https://loyce.club/archive/topics/557/5571154.html

https://loyce.club/archive/posts/6628/66280847.html - You call people's hard work "spamware", then you say core needs to find a shit coin to work on, then you advertised your YouTube channel. It's very obvious why your's got deleted.

Now, you say you have it on "good authority" that all who saw their posts deleted were censored because of their disagreement with core. There is not a single deleted post that fits your "good authority" description. Look for yourself while you wait for Greg to decide if he's going to indulge your attention-seeking behavior again or not.

Go ahead and try to find one, other than your's, that fits your accusation based on "good authority". All of the posts deleted were either spam, advertisments, low quality posts, in a non-english language, or LLM slop. Seems like the only Knotzi harmed was you. Cry more.

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

First Question:
Do you disagree with Satoshi? Do you think miner fees should be the only measure against spam?

There are many spam and dust waves in Bitcoin blockchain history but they as attackers only choose good times for doing such attacks, to clog the Bitcoin mempools and make fuds. In the other times, they have no interest in such attacks and don't want to waste their satoshis, bitcoins for spamming the blockchain.

Lopp analyzed data and wrote this A history of Bitcoin transaction dust & spam storms. I read it several times but today the link does not work, but you can bookmark it and visit it later for reading if the link works again.

Attacks come and go or die naturally with time when attackers see no interest of doing that.

[PepeLapiu]

First Question:
Do you disagree with Satoshi? Do you think miner fees should be the only measure against spam?

There are many spam and dust waves in Bitcoin blockchain history but they as attackers only choose good times for doing such attacks, to clog the Bitcoin mempools and make fuds. In the other times, they have no interest in such attacks and don't want to waste their satoshis, bitcoins for spamming the blockchain.

All you are saying is cope. Like saying a mouse doesn't live very long so a mouse infestation is only temporary. But the fact and the matter is that we can work to make bitcoin a more hospitable place for spam, or we can work to make it less hospitable for spam. Simply saying that a mouse sleeps most of the time and won't live long is nothing but cope.

Lopp analyzed data and wrote this A history of Bitcoin transaction dust & spam storms. I read it several times but today the link does not work, but you can bookmark it and visit it later for reading if the link works again.

The link is not working for me right now. But I wouldn't trust anything that comes out of that asshole. Did you know that Lopp is looking into freezing UTXOs of actual monetary users who he thinks have not moved in too long a time?

Lopp is one of those people who proclaim that "the miner fees are the filter" and anything else is censorship. All the while he knows full well that spam like ordinals getba bigger fee discount than monetary users. And he also knows full well that every wave of spam gets replaced by more spam of a different kind. And he knows full well that spam is more resistant to miner fees than monetary users are.

Attacks come and go or die naturally with time when attackers see no interest of doing that.

I'm not going to hope and pray that scams would eventually go away on their own. That is a passive and stupid way of dealing with the problem.

Consider that core rejected an ordinal filter as "too controversial", they blew up a spam filter last year, they refer to spammers as "users who nee d to upload data" and they refer to spam as "use cases we have today".

In addition to that, big pools are running software expressly to push more spam on the network. LibreRelay and Slipstream are built expressly to push spam on bitcoin.

Hoping they are just going to go away of their own is wishful and delusional.

[ABCbits]

This threat was locked, not by me, but by the forum censorship Nazis.

In that thread, I made it clear in OP that my previous thread was locked against my will by the forum censorship Nazis. That thread was locked within 24 hours. Again, not by me, but by the forum censorship Nazis.

That thread remains unlocked, for now. And I made it clear again in OP that the previous 2 threads were locked, not by me, but by the censorship Nazis.

You made serious and heavy accusation, but can you give solid proof they actually follow Nazi ideology? For reference, USHMM make this summarisation.

This article is about the Nazi Party platform and its relationship to Nazi ideology. Ideology is a set of beliefs about how the world operates. Nazi ideology was racist, antisemitic, and ultranationalist. These ideas drove the Nazis to pursue radical aims, including the mass murder of Jews in the Holocaust.

Here achow101 thread pinned at the top of this section:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5571154.0

You will notice that 12 of the posts from 12 users on that thread were deleted by achow101. And I have it on good authority that all those who saw their post deleted are in disagreement with core's direction taken with core 30 spamware.

https://bitlist.co/topic/5571154?only_deleted=true&sort_by=date_asc actually says there are 39 deleted posts. Let's check all of them,

https://bitlist.co/post/66280847, this is your post that critic Bitcoin Core
https://bitlist.co/post/66292434, praising Bitcoin Core about building from source code
https://bitlist.co/post/66295710, another praise
https://bitlist.co/post/66325494, mostly praise with some informational message
https://bitlist.co/post/66336238, share youtube video about running bitcoind/qt, but the video isn't exist
https://bitlist.co/post/66346456, promoting stablecoin
https://bitlist.co/post/66346712, promoting some link about video game
https://bitlist.co/post/66362224, claiming himself as Satoshi Nakamoto
https://bitlist.co/post/66380342, it says "hmm interesting"
https://bitlist.co/post/66389566, promoting service that steal "lost" Bitcoin
https://bitlist.co/post/66391648, promoting casino
https://bitlist.co/post/66419276, praising about amazing development
https://bitlist.co/post/66419977, another praise about fix and continue maintenance
https://bitlist.co/post/66420393, similar praise with above
https://bitlist.co/post/66420559, off-topic
https://bitlist.co/post/66420564, off-topic, it's asking question about Bitcoin in general
https://bitlist.co/post/66428095, minor praise
https://bitlist.co/post/66428796, promoting shady recovery service
https://bitlist.co/post/66438774, promoting multiple casino
https://bitlist.co/post/66440024, another positive sentiment
https://bitlist.co/post/66440324, neutral sentiment
https://bitlist.co/post/66443416, promoting a phone number
https://bitlist.co/post/66489797, it says "Thanks for best product!"
https://bitlist.co/post/66496267, it says "11"
https://bitlist.co/post/66496278, it says "11"
https://bitlist.co/post/66498722, rant about someone else post that talk about non-existent change
https://bitlist.co/post/66517971, this is my post that also talk someone else post that talk about non-existent change
https://bitlist.co/post/66519029, mostly positive sentiment
https://bitlist.co/post/66522029, promoting some links that isn't about cryptocurrency
https://bitlist.co/post/66528749, another post that promote some links that isn't about cryptocurrency
https://bitlist.co/post/66543741, another positive sentiment
https://bitlist.co/post/66553544, it says "good"
https://bitlist.co/post/66586172, some positive sentiment, but also mention segwit2x (i don't see how it's related)
https://bitlist.co/post/66586370, some positive sentiment, but also wish for better UX
https://bitlist.co/post/66586670, claiming Core 30.2 ban non-SegWit output which isn't true.
https://bitlist.co/post/66586969, some positive sentiment, but also claim 30.2 introduce SegWit2x activation.
https://bitlist.co/post/66587184, some positive sentiment, but also contain negative sentiment about UI change
https://bitlist.co/post/66597814, promoting MLM software while also talk about wallet/sync issue.
https://bitlist.co/post/66598863, promoting website that list casino

From all 39 deleted posts, there are far less than 12 posts that critic or contain negative sentiment about Bitcoin Core. So can you prove your claim by sharing 12 direct link to such posts?

[PepeLapiu]

This threat was locked, not by me, but by the forum censorship Nazis.

In that thread, I made it clear in OP that my previous thread was locked against my will by the forum censorship Nazis. That thread was locked within 24 hours. Again, not by me, but by the forum censorship Nazis.

That thread remains unlocked, for now. And I made it clear again in OP that the previous 2 threads were locked, not by me, but by the censorship Nazis.

You made serious and heavy accusation, but can you give solid proof they actually follow Nazi ideology? For reference, USHMM make this summarisation.

You want to argue the definition of words? You think when I wrote censorship Nazi, I actually meant they are gassing Jews? Are you for real? Perhaps you should go back to arguing the definition of spam. Equally retarded, but slightly more productive.

From all 39 deleted posts, there are far less than 12 posts that critic or contain negative sentiment about Bitcoin Core. So can you prove your claim by sharing 12 direct link to such posts?

Strangely enough I posted two negative comments towards core 30 in that thread, one from each of my two accounts, yet your list only shows one. I suspect your list doesn't show all the comments deleted in that list.

Never the less, achow101 deleted 12 posts (not 39), and I deleted one single post. Yet Maxwell accused me of censorship. Will he accuse achow101 of censorship too?


Also, I find it interesting you all run to defend Maxwell, but none of you would touch the fee questions with a 10 ft pole.

Doesn't it bother you that for nearly 4 years, they were gas lighting you into thinking the miner fee is sufficient to weed out all the spam, in spite of ordinal spammers getting a bigger discount than monetary users?

And would anyone here explain to me what sort of magic smoke in the miner fees would push out only spammers but not monetary users?




I think it's obvious by now, neither Maxwell nor the rest of you will address the questions in OP about fees being the filter.
Greg Maxwell et al have been gaslighting you all this time.

[ertil]

none of you would touch the fee questions with a 10 ft pole

You already got that answer multiple times, but you ignored it: one way to filter transactions is through fees, another way is to do that by using Proof of Work. Do you want to use Proof of Work as a filter?

The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime.  Because of that, I wanted to design it to support every possible transaction type I could think of.  The problem was, each thing required special support code and data fields whether it was used or not, and only covered one special case at a time.  It would have been an explosion of special cases.  The solution was script, which generalizes the problem so transacting parties can describe their transaction as a predicate that the node network evaluates.  The nodes only need to understand the transaction to the extent of evaluating whether the sender's conditions are met.

And now, by blocking scripts, which are widely used, you want to downgrade Bitcoin from "use any Script you want" to "use only scripts centrally approved by Luke". How is the second system better? And is there at least a way to know, what exactly will be allowed, and what exactly will be blocked? Because by limiting the Script, you introduce a centralized point of failure, that has to tell the world, what is spammy, and what is not, which will be responsible for updating it on a regular basis, and announcing it properly.

Also, if you want to block the whole spam properly, then you should probably switch to the previous model, rejected by Satoshi, which used "an explosion of special cases". Then, you can start from scratch, and say for example: "using a single public key is allowed" (I am not sure, if Knots will try to block public keys, so even in this case, it is far from being set in stone). And then, you can add each transaction type separately: "using multiple public keys is allowed" (again, I don't know if Knots want to remove multisig or not). And later: "using hashed public key is allowed" (or maybe not, who knows if everything starting from "1dice" will be blocked or not). And the same thing should be repeated for every transaction type, approved by Knots, which won't be blocked in the future (because if it will be, then how it is better than in banks, where funds can be blocked for arbitrary reasons?).

So, where is the place, that could tell users, what is spam, and what is not? Even in simple cases like public keys, they can be rejected, because they "seems to be fake". So, how users can check, if their transactions are spammy or not?

[PepeLapiu]

none of you would touch the fee questions with a 10 ft pole

You already got that answer multiple times, but you ignored it

Interesting. I didn't ignore it, I just didn't see it until now. I'll go answer it and gone right back.

[ABCbits]

You want to argue the definition of words? You think when I wrote censorship Nazi, I actually meant they are gassing Jews? Are you for real? Perhaps you should go back to arguing the definition of spam. Equally retarded, but slightly more productive.

I don't understand how you got than conclusion when i already include quote that says "Nazi ideology was racist, antisemitic, and ultranationalist.".

From all 39 deleted posts, there are far less than 12 posts that critic or contain negative sentiment about Bitcoin Core. So can you prove your claim by sharing 12 direct link to such posts?

Strangely enough I posted two negative comments towards core 30 in that thread, one from each of my two accounts, yet your list only shows one. I suspect your list doesn't show all the comments deleted in that list.

Both https://bitlist.co/topic/5571154?sort_by=date_asc and https://loyce.club/archive/topics/557/5571154.html says only you created 1 reply on that thread. And my list already include all deleted posts that recorded by BitList. Anyway, i still you haven't see list of critic/negative sentiment post that deleted (besides yours).

Never the less, achow101 deleted 12 posts (not 39), and I deleted one single post. Yet Maxwell accused me of censorship. Will he accuse achow101 of censorship too?

For deleting promotional and spam (some of them disguised as positive sentiment/compliment) reply?

Also, I find it interesting you all run to defend Maxwell, but none of you would touch the fee questions with a 10 ft pole.

My stance should be obvious. But i believe you can guess my stance better by reading my old reply.

As i said previously, fork isn't really needed. You could just make Ordinal TX become non-standard. And few attempt to do that always rejected, see
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29769

And soft-fork isn't needed as we could just make Ordinal TX become non-standard, just like how SegWit address with uncompressed public key categorized as non-standard.

[PepeLapiu]

As I expected, no reply from @gregmaxwell
It's pretty hard to justify fees being the spam filter when spam gets half the price of Segwit monetary users, or a quarter of the price of legacy monetary users.

And soft-fork isn't needed as we could just make Ordinal TX become non-standard, just like how SegWit address with uncompressed public key categorized as non-standard.

Hmmm, interesting!
You mean an ordinal filter?
I agree, that would be a great idea.
But when an ordinal filter was suggested, core changed the definition of arbitrary data limit in their documentation, and they rejected the filter based on their new definition, and they claimed the filter is "too controversial".

But I got good news for you, if you think an ordinal filter is a good idea, Knots has it....

none of you would touch the fee questions with a 10 ft pole

You already got that answer multiple times, but you ignored it: one way to filter transactions is through fees

Yup! That's what coretards have been saying for the last 5 years since the ordinal crave started. Problem is, must monetary users get a 50% Segwit discount while ordinal spammers get a 75% discount.

So if the fees are the filter, and spammerspaty half as much as monetary users, who are the fees really filtering out?

another way is to do that by using Proof of Work. Do you want to use Proof of Work as a filter?

Never heard of POW as a filter, so I have no opinion on that. When Satoshi said there are other things we can do, other than the fees, to drive out spam, do you believe he was talking about POW as the only other thing we can do?

[ertil]

When Satoshi said there are other things we can do, other than the fees, to drive out spam, do you believe he was talking about POW as the only other thing we can do?

Yes, because it is described in the chapter 12 of the whitepaper, called "Conclusion":

Nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.

See? To enforce any rules and incentives, you need only Proof of Work. It is usually more convenient for users to pay fees instead, because then, existing satoshis are covered by Proof of Work, which was needed to make them in the first place. But if you don't want to use fees, then you need the simplest filter in existence, which is Proof of Work.

Of course, there are also other kinds of filters, for example "time". But in decentralized consensus, time is also expressed by using Proof of Work. Because if the hashrate majority would want to work with future timestamps, then they could directly affect the difficulty. We learned that lesson in testnet4, where fake timestamps increased the difficulty six times, what caused ASIC blocks to be produced once per hour, instead of once per 10 minutes.

And also, you can find some examples in the whitepaper, what is not a good filter:

The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote.

Which means, that if you want to activate new rules, by just counting nodes, while having for example 1% hashrate on your side, then your chain would be weak.

Problem is, must monetary users get a 50% Segwit discount while ordinal spammers get a 75% discount.

Only because there are more inputs and outputs in your examples. It is cheaper to have a single coin with a multisig, than more coins with single keys. Which is also why BIP-110 is incompatible with network incentives: if more complex scripts will be blocked, then the same things would be executed, by using more coins, so they will take more on-chain space than today.

So, if you want to make cheaper transactions, then just put them in your witness. It will not only decrease fees, but also the UTXO bloat, because each and every coin is indexed separately.

So if the fees are the filter, and spammerspaty half as much as monetary users, who are the fees really filtering out?

Of course users, that want to use 10 coins, instead of having 10-of-10 multisig, and using a single coin (and in case of Taproot, even a single signature). See chapter 9 of the whitepaper, called "Combining and Splitting Value":

Normally there will be either a single input from a larger previous transaction or multiple inputs combining smaller amounts, and at most two outputs: one for the payment, and one returning the change, if any, back to the sender.

Which means, that if you want to have cheap transactions, then just use the system as intended, and use "at most two outputs". If you add more, for example because of a CoinJoin, then it can improve your privacy, but then you will obviously pay more fees.

Edit:

The vast majority of monetary users get around 50% Segwit discount. Here is a typical Segwit monetary transaction:
https://mempool.space/tx/7061b343aa324b2d115a3a1447bf7ba4d3454197ca8666634c2ef29994317cf9

Having 500 inputs is not "a typical monetary transaction". If there would be 500-of-500 multisig instead, then it would be much cheaper.

But ordinal spammers most often get a 75% discount. Here is a typical ordinal transaction:
https://mempool.space/tx/fc902cae68e52e7adbb03f5f95adca177dd5f27ab562992f47e05cea5def608e

One input, seven outputs. Much less coins, so the discount is bigger. Want to do the same? Then put your coins inside witness, instead of making separate UTXOs.

[PepeLapiu]

(endless irrelevant drivel)

Stop quoting irrelevent stuff with irrelevent replies. Quote the following and reply to the following:

If ordinal spammers pay half the price monetary users pay in fees, who are the fees really filtering here?

And it should be noted, @gregmaxwell is still ignoring this thread and refusing to answer the questions in OP.

[ertil]

If ordinal spammers pay half the price monetary users pay in fees, who are the fees really filtering here?

Those, who cannot consolidate coins properly. If you have transaction with 500 inputs, then it is obvious, that it will be expensive.

Also, if this transaction is not owned by a single person, but for example by 500 people, then the fee per user should be divided by 500.

gregmaxwell is still ignoring this thread

Of course, because there is nothing new. People are just patiently waiting for BIP-110 to fail, when Knots users will see, that by having 1% or less hashrate, their chain will produce one block per day. As I said, Proof of Work is the simplest filter. And if you ignore miners, then you will see that in practice, unless you change the code from Proof of Work to something else, where no miners will be needed.

[PepeLapiu]

Still avoiding the question:

If ordinal spammers pay half the price monetary users pay in fees, who are the fees really filtering here?

[ertil]

Still avoiding the question

You literally got the answer: "who are the fees really filtering here?" - "users which don't know, how to consolidate coins properly".

The transaction from your example consumed 500 inputs. It is obvious, that the more inputs you have, the more expensive it would be. The UTXO set is processed by each full node, including pruned ones. If you use more UTXOs, you will pay more fees.

If you would have 500-of-500 multisig instead, then it would be cheaper.

[PepeLapiu]

Still avoiding the question

You literally got the answer: "who are the fees really filtering here?" - "users which don't know, how to consolidate coins properly".

This is a lie, and you know it.

The transaction from your example consumed 500 inputs. It is obvious, that the more inputs you have, the more expensive it would be. The UTXO set is processed by each full node, including pruned ones. If you use more UTXOs, you will pay more fees.

The number of inputs is irrelevent. No matter how many inputs the monetary bitcoiner spends, he will never get more than 55% Segwit discount. Most often between 45 and 50% discount.

Take the following monetary tx for example:
https://mempool.space/tx/df02613fde9be3d14193858a9ffc4dc8ff5f1c466cbf95907a16bd6fc3594089
There is only one input and one output. You can't get any leaner than that. Yet this monetary tx only gets a 43% Segwit discount. And ordinal spammers get a 75% Segwit discount.

Some rare complex exchange transactions can get higher discount. But 99% of monetary users will not get more than 50% Segwit discount.

However, spammers regularly and consistently get a 75% discount.

Which results in ordinal spammers to pay half as much as monetary users.

So, if spammers pay half as much as monetary users, who are the fees really filtering out?

Maxwell, Zhao, Back, and the rest of the Chaincode Labs/Blockstream/Epstein shills have been gas lighting you the whole time by claiming the fees are the filter. Yes the fees are the filter, but effectively filtering out monetary users for the benefit of ordinal spammers and CEXs.

[ABCbits]

The number of inputs is irrelevent. No matter how many inputs the monetary bitcoiner spends, he will never get more than 55% Segwit discount. Most often between 45 and 50% discount.

Take the following monetary tx for example:
https://mempool.space/tx/df02613fde9be3d14193858a9ffc4dc8ff5f1c466cbf95907a16bd6fc3594089
There is only one input and one output. You can't get any leaner than that. Yet this monetary tx only gets a 43% Segwit discount.

Actually total inputs matter, but only a little. There are TX field that doesn't repeated based on total input/output, such as TX version or flag.

Some rare complex exchange transactions can get higher discount. But 99% of monetary users will not get more than 50% Segwit discount.

Partly because most people/user don't need multi-signature address for more security and don't use inheritance wallet that utilize SegWit/P2WSH address.

And ordinal spammers get a 75% Segwit discount.

However, spammers regularly and consistently get a 75% discount.

That's not true, it depends on average size of their arbitrary data on each input. Typical BRC-20 (that use Ordinal) TX probably have witness discount around 50%.

[PepeLapiu]

Partly because most people/user don't need multi-signature address for more security and don't use inheritance wallet that utilize SegWit/P2WSH address.

Regardless of the reason, the results are the same: ordinal jpeg spammers and CEX get a bigger discount than monetary users. Which begs the question: who are the fees filtering here?

However, spammers regularly and consistently get a 75% discount.

That's not true, it depends on average size of their arbitrary data on each input. Typical BRC-20 (that use Ordinal) TX probably have witness discount around 50%.

Well, I didn't know BRC tokens use Segwit. So I should have been more precise: jpeg ordinal spammers regularly get ~75% Segwit discount.

While I'm sure you will find some exceptions, if you navigate the last 100 ordinals on mempool.space, you will see this is largely accurate: ordinals get a ~75% discount, with rare exceptions.

And it's also largely accuare that monetary users get a ~50% discount at most with some rare exceptions.

Both will have some exceptions, but that doesn't take away from the fact that ordinal spammers pay half as much as monetary users with a bigger Segwit discount.

My formula to calculate the Segwit discount is very very simple:

(tx size - tx virtual size) / tx size * 100

It should be noted that blockstream/core/spam/Epstein shill Greg Maxwell is still avoiding the question:
So, if jpeg ordinal spammers pay half as much as monetary users, who are the fees really filtering out?

[Wind_FURY]

I think it's fundamental:  the resource needs to be limit in supply to control operating costs and to drive income for security.  Free market action turns that into a market.  If someone is outbidding what you're willing to pay that is a problem for you but it's also a success for the system.

Here Greg is taking the long winded approach of saying "the miner fees are the filter".
Implicit to that is the idea that miner fees should be the only filter.
But Satoshi said this about spam:

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

First Question:
Do you disagree with Satoshi? Do you think miner fees should be the only measure against spam?

The vast majority of monetary users get around 50% Segwit discount. Here is a typical Segwit monetary transaction:
https://mempool.space/tx/7061b343aa324b2d115a3a1447bf7ba4d3454197ca8666634c2ef29994317cf9
But ordinal spammers most often get a 75% discount. Here is a typical ordinal transaction:
https://mempool.space/tx/fc902cae68e52e7adbb03f5f95adca177dd5f27ab562992f47e05cea5def608e

Second question:
Given that ordinals pay half as much in miner fees with a 75% discount, versus a 50% discount for most monetary users, who are the fees really filtering out here?

On my profile, you wrote the following:

Spamming Bitcoin talk with repeative false claims promoting bip 110, creates self moderated threads promoting his position and removes posts that discredit his points and locks threads and makes new ones when the discussion doesn't go in his direction.

I opened a thread here attempting to discuss the pros and cons of BIP110:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5578079.0
This threat was locked, not by me, but by the forum censorship Nazis.

So I re-opened a new thread with the same subject here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5579484.0

In that thread, I made it clear in OP that my previous thread was locked against my will by the forum censorship Nazis. That thread was locked within 24 hours. Again, not by me, but by the forum censorship Nazis. And they also deleted all the comments on that thread who were agreeing with me. So if you read the tread, I look like some kind of lone nut nobody agrees with.

So I opened a 3rd attempt here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5579958.0
That thread remains unlocked, for now. And I made it clear again in OP that the previous 2 threads were locked, not by me, but by the censorship Nazis.

Furthermore, I made it clear in OP that any disrespectful post would be deleted. You called me stupid, and so I deleted that post and invited you to repost it in a more respectful manner. That was the first and only post I deleted on any of my threads anywhere on this forum.

Here achow101 thread pinned at the top of this section:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5571154.0

You will notice that 12 of the posts from 12 users on that thread were deleted by achow101. And I have it on good authority that all those who saw their post deleted are in disagreement with core's direction taken with core 30 spamware.

Third Question:
Given that achow101 censors 12x as many posts as I do, will you commit to also post a negative comment on achow101's profile?

GREG,



     

[PepeLapiu]

GREG,



     

Why don't you try to answer the question?

So, if jpeg ordinal spammers pay half as much as monetary users, who are the fees really filtering out?