Questions for Greg Maxwell

So Greg's kinda saying that "miner fees are the filter" in a roundabout way. Implicit in that is the idea that only miner fees should be used to filter things out. But remember what Satoshi had to say about spam: First question: Do you think Satoshi's wrong? Should miner fees really be the only way to tackle spam? Most monetary users get about a 50% discount with Segwit. Check out this typical Segwit transaction: But those ordinal spammers usually get a 75% discount. Here’s an example of an ordinal transaction: Second question: Since ordinals are paying half as much in miner fees with that 75% discount, compared to the 50% discount for regular monetary users, who are these fees really filtering out? On my profile, you mentioned this: I created a thread here to chat about the ups and downs of BIP110. It got locked, and not by me, but by the forum’s censorship crew. So I started a new thread on the same topic here: In that thread, I made it clear that my previous one got locked against my wishes by the forum’s censorship crew. That thread was locked in less than 24 hours. Again, not by me, but by the censorship squad. They even deleted all the supportive comments on that thread, making me look like a total lone nut. So if you check it out, it seems like nobody agrees with me.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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

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. 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.

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? 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?

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

I don't understand how you got than conclusion when i already include quote that says "Nazi ideology was racist, antisemitic, and ultranationalist.". 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). For deleting promotional and spam (some of them disguised as positive sentiment/compliment) reply? My stance should be obvious. But i believe you can guess my stance better by reading my old reply.

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. 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.... 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? 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?

Yes, because it is described in the chapter 12 of the whitepaper, called "Conclusion": 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: 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. 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. 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": 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: Having 500 inputs is not "a typical monetary transaction". If there would be 500-of-500 multisig instead, then it would be much cheaper. 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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

This is a lie, and you know it. 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.

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. 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. 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%.

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? 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?

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?