Quote from: coolcoinz on Today at 08:36:17 PM

I agree that there should be some censorship and that censorship should not be done the authoritarian way, but rather the libertarian way, with a pinch of capitalism.
If someone came to me and told me they want to spray my car bright pink and do the same with my house because they're making a youtube challenge or something, I wouldn't say no, I'd ask what am I getting out of it. If you pay me $20k, go ahead and paint my car pink, I'll go get it wrapped for 5k and have another 15k left.

You want to spam the network, fine, but how much are you willing to pay?

I'd call that 'supply & demand' rather than 'censorship', but otherwise, yes. That's pretty much what it boils down to. There are cheaper blockchains to spam, so this current attention we're getting from the novelty-picture-brigade hopefully won't last long. If I'm wrong and they keep spamming the BTC chain, then it's up to the collective network as a whole to decide what, if anything, needs to be done about it. But I'd rather see a productive conversation about it, rather than a witch-hunt.

Quote from: franky1 on Today at 02:11:52 PM

they want the spam they want the bloat they want high bitcoin fee's and low transaction counts.. they dont care about bitcoin. they are altcoiners

I don't recall anyone specifically advocating for high fees. That's just more dishonesty on your part. Reasonable people are simply suggesting that market forces shouldn't be artificially manipulated one way or the other. Fee bidding has always been organic. As soon as you attempt to tip the scales one way or another, the onus is on you to justify why everyone should accept your suggested manipulation. Your case remains unconvincing. Come up with better arguments.

One could also argue that those who can only think as far as copying what unsuccessful altcoins have done; Those who would mimic the cheap, faltering, dismal clones of Bitcoin; Those who would willingly sacrifice what makes Bitcoin stand out from the sea of unremarkable shite out there, they would be the one who doesn't care about Bitcoin. That's you, by the way. Maybe come up with something more original than "let's do the same thing worthless altcoins did and sacrifice decentralisation for throughput, even though it completely defeats the whole point of having a decentralised network in the first place" and people might start taking you seriously. One-trick-pony, much?

And for the record, I'm not completely opposed to increases to the size of blocks. I just happen to believe it will only occur when those supporting the network are prepared to bear the cost of such increases. And I'm yet to see any evidence to counter that belief. Individual zealots perched atop their soapboxes, preaching their hate-filled dogma to the crowd, have remarkably little say in the matter. The network is naturally resistant to such noise. Sorry, but you don't get to demand that other people pay the cost for everything. If you want to use the valuable resource others are providing you with, you pay for it. Nowhere is it said that someone not only has to provide you with a service and also pay for it themselves, just so you can be a parasitic leech and get something for nothing. But everything you describe in your fantasy-fascist-fuckwit-franky wishlist sounds like you just want free shit handed to you.

Quote from: n0nce on Today at 10:33:11 PM

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 02:12:39 PM

Quote from: n0nce on Today at 01:52:19 PM

I already mentioned some examples how to disincentivize it. For instance, some privacy coins drastically reduce the amount of publicly viewable data per transaction due to encryption of many transaction components.

Here's a minor but important thing to note: those particular cryptocurrencies you mentioned previously didn't begin with this feature, which appeared to be a trouble for some later on. And even if they did, removing it later should be considered censorship. Bitcoin on the other hand allows you to store data since v0.1. Second, as far as I understand, cryptocurrencies like grin and monero don't have the analog of OP_RETURN? Isn't that a serious disadvantage for forward compatibility?

I agree, they are very different in nature and it would be hard to use the same mechanisms in Bitcoin. Maybe they could be used just as inspiration and we could create something new that fits Bitcoin and still lets us achieve the same goals.

I certainly feel that 'incentive versus disincentive' is a much healthier line of discussion than 'Orwellian crackdowns on freedom', so I'm intrigued where this goes. Please continue.