Thread
2) Ordinals/Inscriptions are just spam. It's basically a scamcoin using proof-of-attacking-Bitcoin as its "algorithm". Taproot witness data does not allow arbitrary data - that's just an abusive *mis*interpretation of script code that Ordinals is doing completely unrelated to Bitcoin. This _is_ a relevant distinction.
3) Satoshi introduced spam filters to deal with the spam issue. So Bitcoin literally _was_ designed to work this way.
4) Again, Bitcoin has used spam filters from the start. It is Core30 that aims to change Bitcoin by removing some.
Replies (2)
Calling it spam’ or a scam coin doesn’t change that it exists and uses valid transaction structures post Taproot. Whether it’s abuse or not, the protocol accepts it. If Taproot witness data doesn’t allow arbitrary data, why does the exploit work? The protocol is the arbiter, not our opinions about intended use.
Satoshi’s spam filters were protocol level consensus rules (like block size), not mempool policy that filters by content type. There’s a difference between “this transaction is too big” and “this transaction contains the wrong kind of data.”
Core 30 is expanding limits that already existed, not removing spam filters entirely. The question is whether expanding those limits is allowing Bitcoin to be what it became post Taproot, or breaking from original design. I’d argue Taproot itself was the change, and Core 30 is just acknowledging the reality that change created.
I’d still like this fundamental question answered: if filtering spam requires ongoing human judgment about what’s real Bitcoin use versus attack, who decides? And doesn’t that create the gatekeeping we’re trying to avoid?
The exploit works because Core neglected to update the spam filters a few years ago, and refuses to fix the vulnerability.
And no, you're wrong. Satoshi's spam filters were VERY picky about what was inside transactions. Anything that he didn't foresee being used was rejected.
Core30's malicious changes have nothing whatsoever to do with Taproot.
Each user decides for himself. Collectively, our nodes form consensus around what is spam and what maybe isn't.
