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?
