Thoughts on Transaction Fee Filtering

Greg seems to think that miner fees are the only filter we need. But isn't it a bit naive? Satoshi had concerns about spam too. First question for him: do you really believe only fees should fight spam?

The cool thing is, most users actually get a Segwit discount of around 50%. Check out this typical Segwit transaction. But the ordinal spammers are getting like 75%. Isn't that a problem?

You can find that old discussion here. It's pretty revealing. And honestly, calling things "spamware" is a bit much, don't you think? Plus, you were promoting your YouTube channel all over the place. No wonder it got deleted.

Spam has hit Bitcoin at various times, and spammers know when to strike. They don't waste satoshis if they think it won't pay off. Lopp's analysis on dust and spam waves is interesting. Wish the link was working now.

Sounds like you're just coping. Saying temporary infestations are fine because they won't last. But we could actually do something to make Bitcoin less friendly for spam. Like, isn't that a better approach?

Lopp's looking into freezing UTXOs from users who haven’t moved them in a while? Wow, that’s a bit extreme. Who even trusts his opinions anymore?

If you're making those heavy accusations, can you lay down some solid proof? And checking deleted posts, it seems there’s more to the story than you’re saying.

Are we really arguing over definitions here? Using 'Nazi' to describe censoring seems a bit much. Maybe focus on understanding spam instead of playing word games.

I’ve posted multiple critiques on the core, yet somehow only one is visible on your list? Feels like we’re not getting the full picture.

The concept of filtering transactions through fees or Proof of Work is valid. But what's up with limiting scripts? Are we getting into centralized territory here?

Just saw the previous replies. I mean, there are options, you know? But yeah, limiting script use feels wrong.

Still not helping. If ordinal spammers are paying less than others, what’s the real filtering here? Shouldn’t we focus on that?

If a transaction has a ton of inputs, it’s gonna cost more. It's simple math. But we’re waiting for the BIP-110 failure, right? Proof of Work is the simplest way to filter.

Are we seriously ignoring the main question here? Fees should be about filtering out bad transactions, not users struggling to consolidate their coins.

You literally got the answer right there: it’s users who don’t know how to consolidate their coins. If you have 500 inputs, naturally, that’ll cost a lot.

This is a stretch. Inputs don’t affect the overall discount that much. Most users with a single input don’t get more than a 55% discount.

Come on, total inputs matter slightly but not that much. The TX fields are still relevant regardless of how many inputs you have.

But even then, the discounts aren’t fair. Ordinal spammers are walking away with better rates than everyday users.

If JPEG ordinal spammers are getting around 75% discounts, that’s alarming. Why are they getting treated better than regular monetary transactions?

So, if the fees are filtering just a few people, what is the point? Why are we letting spammers slip through while honest users get stuck paying more?