Quote from: Lucko on July 10, 2015, 06:14:37 AM

Quote from: tspacepilot on July 10, 2015, 12:34:14 AM

Quote from: Lucko on July 09, 2015, 11:11:50 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on July 09, 2015, 10:50:32 PM

Is there a way to relabel Lucko from "Hero Member" to "Clueless Idiot"? <.<

Quote from: Lucko on July 09, 2015, 10:42:17 PM

Quote from: sturle on July 09, 2015, 10:19:48 PM

This is by design from the beginning. If you don't like the way bitcoin is designed, you should use something else. There is no way to change it. There is no way to force anyone running a full node to mine or relay any specific transaction.

No you need to change it to do that... If you don't it will not reject valid transaction. You need to add so-called antispam to it and say this in a valid translation but it is not valid for me. And when a big pools and nodes start doing this and that is blocking big wallets providers it is a big problem if they don't tell you what new rules are... this is practically unannounced a fork...

No, this is what Bitcoin has always done by design and also by default since 0.3.19 released by Satoshi.
Policy is not a network fork in any sense.

If you change the rules of the network it is a fork. I can send a valid masage but if everyone is saying I don't care if it is valid it is not valid for me. So the protocol is different. So what else is it then a fork? Only difference is that you don't know it is coming and upgrading doesn't help since it is arbitrarily set of rules. Please enlighten me how this is any different?

You're misunderstanding the difference between the rules of the network and the actions of the participants in the network. If you send a message over the network then listeners will use the rules of the network to parse your message. If they can parse it, it fits the rules of the network. What your peers do in response to your message is in part determined by the rules of the network, because if your peers send unparseable messages no one will understand. But even within the rules of the network, your peers have choices: they can rebroadcast your transaction to their peers, they can turn off their machine and go home, etc. The rules of the network is not the same thing as the actions of the participants.

I'm using extreme to get a point across. Everyone agreed Sybil Attack were attacks not choices. So unless you think that there was noting wrong with doing that you should use same critters with antispam rules that disrupted wallets...

EDIT: Just adding a link http://www.coindesk.com/chainalysis-ceo-denies-launching-sybil-attack-on-bitcoin-network/

Ok, but using "an extreme example to get your point across" which confuses important distinctions does more harm than good, imo. BTW, thanks for the link to the story and the sybil attack. If you ask me, people are of course free to try to make false nodes on the bitcoin network. What should happen is that real nodes stop communicating with them if they don't provide copies of the blockchain upon request or other data which you would expect a good peer to do. Again, I believe we have to differentiate between valid network messages vs behavior of people/computers sending and receiving those messages. Everyone has to be free to participate at their own willingness or it's not really going to work, ever. No one forces a peer in a peer-to-peer network to do anything at all. The peer is free to disappear at will, to attempt what it will attempt. The system works when other peers respond in a way which creates incentives for being nice. Not by creating rules which force someone to be nice.