blocking a tx just because you think it is spam.. is bad.
Bitcoin Core does that.
i get the idea of blocking tx's that have values of less than a penny.. but blocking a tx due to data bloat needs careful consideration..
Blocking some kinds of spam is OK, but blocking other kinds of spam is not OK? Avoiding data bloat (UTXO set) is the primary reason for blocking dust. Of course every filter needs careful consideration.
imagine a company wanted to pay its 10,000 staff in bitcoin. and it sent out tx's as such.. luke jr would block the tx.
Congratulations! You just discovered, all by yourself, one of many reasons for why centralization is bad. Keeping the block size small is important to avoid more centralization. Therefore we need to block malicious spam. If Luke mined 100% of all blocks, which he could theoretically do if he got well over 51% of the hashrate, he could block the tx.
the problem is not that tx's need blocking. the problem is that the test is showing that even a small handfull of tx's can cause such controversy. if the blocks were 20mb, there would be no controversy as all tx's would fit happily with no bottleneck..
Now you lost me. Which small handful of tx's caused controversy?
If the blocks were larger, blocking transactions will be easier.
The number of full nodes has already been reduced by 94% over the last year. If you multiply the resource requirements for running a full node by 20, there won't be many full nodes left. Not running a full node sacrifices both privacy and security. Few full nodes makes it easier to block transactions, because a small set of nodes in a few datacenters are easier to control than a large set spread all over the world.
That is just not true. The measurement of full nodes changed. We never really had that huge number of full nodes, some people are propagating.
Furthermore, it is complete bollocks, that you would need a datacenter to have a full node. Please stop spreading that nonsense.