The whole point is is to derail the rational debate Julius. Because there isn’t any. BSV went down the same path and got CSAM…. DON’T TAKE THE RISK! Get it? Just don’t take the risk.

Less is better than more spam

https://youtu.be/nRoAyZG2taE?si=Sm9uRjL9AnQzKT91

Yes paul lamb on youtube has a great video for this

I think that would be cool too and likely a good way to deal with storing arbitrary data on chain. And I would say if we want to go down that path, it would be good to establish an environment that is adversarial to arbitrary data in every stance.

Agreed

Tweaking this value as a relay setting to filter non-monetary data would make relaying it harder if many nodes would enforce it right? I fear Bitcoin suffers the faith of Usenet by gradually opening the gates to non-monetary data.

A snippet from a relevant and interesting chapter in the book Something More Profound by , Chapter 6 Asleep, Tired, Or It Malingers: How Protocols Wither and Die, regarding the spam debate. “”” The Usenet user experience was initially built around threads of conversations, but it didn’t take long for users to realize that a medium used to share and broadcast messages could be used to share and broadcast any sort of binary data, simply by encoding that data as if it were text. It wasn’t long after Usenet was first made available to commercial ISP users that new newsgroups under the alt.binaries. umbrella began to proliferate, with threads of dozens of messages representing pirated software and pornographic movies, encoded as text and split into multiple posts. It was tremendously inefficient to share binary data in this way, but those inefficiencies didn’t impact the users; since the costs weren’t born by the uploaders or downloaders, but instead the newsgroup server operators — typically Internet Service Providers offering Usenet access to their users —alt.binaries traffic proliferated until the free riders had exhausted the resources made available to them. As the amount of storage required to maintain access to the alt.binaries newsgroups increased over the years, many larger ISPs decided that the Usenet juice wasn’t worth the storage squeeze, and stopped offering access to Usenet entirely. Smaller ISPs, desperate not to lose customers, found themselves racing to purchase high-end storage appliances to store all the alt.binaries data in a desperate attempt to keep the free rides going. “””

If I may add 3 points: 1. Right now, a miner including an 80+ byte size OP_RETURN transaction in the block would have a harder time propagating it through the network, slightly increasing the chance of losing the race for the longest chain, right? 2. Would you say the intellectual collective working on Core can foresee all consequences? 3. Isn’t the attack of tx’s going around p2p network peanuts to attack vectors possible with current mining centralisation?

It doesn’t have zero effect when that much people run knots… A miner broadcasting outcast blocks would propagate slower leaving room for a miner broadcasting accepted blocks to become the longest chain. And if that much nodes would run Knots kind of signalling consensus that we don’t want spam on Bitcoin it would probably become easier to discuss more effective methods.

An answer to your question is: they are not. But they are moving in a direction many see as fatal. And, though no consensus change, relaxing filters on the mempool level, being the dominant node software implementation, is making it non-trivially easier to spam. And Core going in this direction, who knows a consensus update in favour of spam is next.