The consensus rules have always been about morality
One charge that's frequently levied at knotzis is that any attempt to reject spam at the consensus level is based on "moral" objections to spam transactions instead of "technical" objections. One problem with this argument is that *many* consensus rules are based on moral objections to potential transactions:
- no doublespending? It's there to prevent "fraud"
- the 21 million cap? It's there to block "inflation"
- proof of work? It's there to ensure "honesty"
Those are the words Satoshi used to motivate the "rules and incentives...enforced [via bitcoin's] consensus mechanism" (the bitcoin whitepaper), and I think they resonate with many of us.
So yeah, "spam is illegitimate" is a moral claim. And if we enforce it, it will be one of several moral claims enforced at the consensus level. Because that's what bitcoin is for: to create a monetary system that is fundamentally *more moral* (in certain ways) than the alternatives. Spam limits, if they become consensus, are just more moral bricks in the wall.
ADAM BACKSTABBER AND BUTTFACE INVENTED A FOOLPROOF IMMORAL SYSTEM!
The trouble is fools are so ingenious .
No comments:
Post a Comment