From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Delivery-date: Mon, 15 Dec 2025 08:09:57 -0800 Received: from mail-oa1-f55.google.com ([209.85.160.55]) by mail.fairlystable.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1vVB91-0007ZO-S0 for bitcoindev@gnusha.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2025 08:09:56 -0800 Received: by mail-oa1-f55.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-3e7f9f1d0a1sf2543740fac.0 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2025 08:09:55 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; t=1765814989; cv=pass; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; b=ltnWjYSWeM/266vySG05nJlhk7EfDeUfsAAoEglf4UwdwJguqc3eMMXRIVVX7UBeM6 tXo05wCaUI+iFwaDm95IEqOzKKIPZtSLOO58iqH4J6SixFmhPKnYXkbgFla/opoVP1VZ G7WW9+63oB/fqKcaQ7MsJTdjwuYQr5+24E5eIbZvqvgAqRBt98Qwd3ptdqj8OS9vh/X9 TdjAC+I3OGLkbUL7EhljZ77M2YYQEQSxXRjP9hk92OXHg0+WXdgYehX2XTYGc8cwBxf2 kMNAUZaqb15CeoDKQN9nNgtOeLh6C0mguxfLZvao/HCQJ8RSxdG6aFxR0A53jIhKq547 Ixcg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:sender:dkim-signature :dkim-signature; bh=+108fdiW0ZVarjpEEu8Ka/xFziV3Jywe+z4Bq6/Aqg4=; fh=yO7spvB8JSt30Ri9HVn3M2WIm3Pbxzu8qa7DshAWF1o=; b=hJQ/KILUo62Wuo5dgAMW6hwQ/7S85xVFB1Uqh9oTFV5Tj+uZVIvuKiAcaCL7ypKMZO RxTQ/3pcc8lEPzbiBFXYf096WW4cx0A9D9uQ8+SrqM2oVVqfAxVWA48wyP8kguKnn4mf 3+bgNhWz6XSyjYPumMzlic5rczEnsIO800WQCaf4TWS55C21TOh4JVXwpqnkX1vcO9CH HO204gZYT14q44UDOZzh8IhnRisSYiVRBXIpOGpG87KZ1Nf+EDkTRbaDecIralU/E0HD tqexDF34aAFBGT8ewbPzQ1UH9GsIqeRdIiTcAgw+zeIzzFTk5BE+Pm6Y/N768Vbapkj1 nG2g==; darn=gnusha.org ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=XRIkNhxO; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gmaxwell@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::630 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=gmaxwell@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com; dara=pass header.i=@googlegroups.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20230601; t=1765814989; x=1766419789; darn=gnusha.org; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=+108fdiW0ZVarjpEEu8Ka/xFziV3Jywe+z4Bq6/Aqg4=; b=tNagFr43j+WDYS4bWZCF+oguUDoZPPisDlX0K8Puuhbd+RcBzaVmcoEFciPLQCfcq5 zgzwoAdtI2/jhvAFPBWoXcf4ky6U/OIkUDOmAyxmuRrNEeMCiFWrrGsVi0GN82s2Ireu eREAc9gwa4NMDc4XDGic1ZHe/cRaxZWgj3rS0dgrnL+bVB1Mn3Ntj+ndkQ3pHX5l6bXu TqrBNQAlHIkvrhxmb0pW+NsDA2JueS6GDMSAJlT6JNmvKwQiNxuDq/pxgN9+tH8Bpj50 oayrIzYhI+rl4IBi/Dvo21W2bvjZgqA9TQoTGwBtl/W4YDBrXGcWSp/ml5XYV4hWhrd0 RVXQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1765814989; x=1766419789; darn=gnusha.org; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+108fdiW0ZVarjpEEu8Ka/xFziV3Jywe+z4Bq6/Aqg4=; b=ZHqkOOJKvDLwnEoPKQDDCGQ/YA56JmDMBUZBhwNEeldteb6X7Fkn2ZX/Hm5gMcpaiB aDpgU8ys22ipFoPo+RysP3/ANfhoqlwhr3NmPLknGmsvdq0AJeGVXdQPkpVERTrU4b99 NeuAi+9I2aLpy4PNQM2WNvWEdzsvB2RogHqV17dnE/fTnDWksrPuVNr225ysZFnnHTit X3lcXyjNvnOMY0FCsGyf5TDDU4bzIUtzpUo110MoOTC39t3OsdH6AMwTB2JfOXz+G6s8 NRX0qj1gxvfiUS69r6bMEyyWv4fc1b/LpK8WLNwTag0Vz1zIhEx0P3NXIhRLCx5H+ifi 2LHg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1765814989; x=1766419789; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:x-gm-gg:x-beenthere:x-gm-message-state :sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+108fdiW0ZVarjpEEu8Ka/xFziV3Jywe+z4Bq6/Aqg4=; b=dqXUmdEVOaY1g99eG1nd5+BNXrWF3e5X39GGP1glTvFaTaVxH9o3Ih9wMl4TeEnzNi mIDr81LtguodEZr7PBCwwjF+d3PSqUkJnKoD+RCIpydDVKQdNV1qnPrzX8mzW+cArAie 4DHJyl+QhW6qubB5Pt292VDSsgE27CDzv6RUR+UmxPswwDua3n7ZNO/ea7wrmY9w3rjv qGCKOY12q5mpXm9tpT59uc25skholGxT072/yTRVUOBcS8yyNBa0CVfv8sZLAnL4nPQ9 9BsoAEcML8i1MwIqxYEMSgiDUBlZipZ+qztJOt4BHJsBeZh9lVgp7ccG+XqiYGG7mUVa cx+g== Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=2; AJvYcCVK/NiWJPsWFvTUwO5o2/7jYwdowfSkSc43lrJkaZ88p0KvEPfzpHNnQ2yorq8kVbSAPwRKBy9t37DO@gnusha.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzLmwvIl5XnfTjWti4LENkhEWUD/+/l7UUHfe3Hhp5IA2U2tOoq GU/OfKX4rjMGVYe/WeEH/vTdcJZNe/j6ES9fZk+r9zGyGIjPWhVJzH0u X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEXhoC8+oiyZqogCHRMfumNRWe7YngZhSQVzmjPRf6KYQhFn7/zyRYez46DgvisWiIF9B/DeQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:275:b0:3f5:b9c7:6d00 with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-3f5f8cdb8c3mr5683806fac.57.1765814989196; Mon, 15 Dec 2025 08:09:49 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; h="AWVwgWZ4UORcSjBtSXSIwSPvktv1jfVFao37SuTRDxlkmfvqsw==" Received: by 2002:a05:6871:6804:b0:3ec:53ac:b3af with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-3f5f8781969ls1568327fac.1.-pod-prod-06-us; Mon, 15 Dec 2025 08:09:45 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:1443:b0:44f:e912:ea97 with SMTP id 5614622812f47-455ac82a695mr5279050b6e.18.1765814985476; Mon, 15 Dec 2025 08:09:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by 2002:a05:6808:6691:10b0:450:c180:fd79 with SMTP id 5614622812f47-455a78c4472msb6e; Mon, 15 Dec 2025 08:04:40 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:b14a:b0:3cd:c87c:c639 with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-3f5f8c7acf5mr6077765fac.49.1765814679483; Mon, 15 Dec 2025 08:04:39 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1765814679; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; b=HyYbW84BFiIJGGBDZ2PauN4NOauSOAZF8HxxFzv9KHOx87j/Lr0E7oNwaAQgcd9HxH GSPhnDcnL+5gTlPjcgBA05Sl8h2iniMzyQvzHo9Z4aNekZ5pIWvBGiCzOYZ8ZvJC/pO3 Kh51j5BgXDN3B9wLmky8WNQpl2oLwPSREJmRTYFe4c87hLjXkKdkNOJ6gc4TdWM0Msqg TukxGunOmLzOtWDjB7xD1lRBN+FZ8o+9pfsNDveWqXY6IAr022qvgqft/13bs6IwmyGD +PLY0PPNHO0xpsVd70MBf1ZCKEug21/M5ZL0cKyFW8ATFgkm4DTa1rjzHgmugDQxP+bY nlrg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=/eo4M11jDI9Sv0JCaMUy0cEKWaRBxQbD6CwzU2MiEJs=; fh=jRW8sANaqTHFKi2Z6hgUZqOMGszuTaDBA0gwJkCHGzw=; b=YJmj589iJRhKqRlbZ6XCCHh1csntdfZ2GfwksJAnxHJmi11nlyoVELuYjSRVxdII9J m3E0ZjiS/4u2oRYsxjB/QIQf0fG/ScEACht04XqGThrqjK6fSdxGn3/yLTI44qCalH8y OQlICVs5r01zAKs5PW9LqIoyTLqNYeKCT7yY0DLrvFLyI53efmdZNj7u00iMzQ/pbG1O NkpnXj6DjxRt/HbJD3DzmrVDvY5Dv47n/lZY29nPwlcXvTOt/32aaCFqSwIDN8773q/4 OvFgb96KWvQxpzOaYBCsg97yqu6vKFFCxlpPg+lsb6WwtfeDPg8tpHbN9+7c2EMtWlPF jgOw==; dara=google.com ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=XRIkNhxO; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gmaxwell@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::630 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=gmaxwell@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com; dara=pass header.i=@googlegroups.com Received: from mail-pl1-x630.google.com (mail-pl1-x630.google.com. [2607:f8b0:4864:20::630]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 586e51a60fabf-3f614b63273si166866fac.2.2025.12.15.08.04.39 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 15 Dec 2025 08:04:39 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gmaxwell@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::630 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::630; Received: by mail-pl1-x630.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-29f2676bb21so37062795ad.0 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2025 08:04:39 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Gg: AY/fxX6bPSCof7l7nYLPsd4NkM2lyN1A5c6O8Dzwj5M00vZoBJXXvwCY733kHiGRkhM 38/C0f09IScvrLKTCkNIQP6t5MqDYfWE2iWcoOqpZZBxOtRjh5KlisyDFwLrbEKDJjrUDIg2uP1 qZ24UvpKpMRPqGiitjOJfj6SD/F8fKLkno68v/KeGozfldAsW2OWZBdiMjPNlBRwGeVLkMDHo7h hHOmChEjTPO0jNzCmBURQFate1eVTq9RjW7IFZnhBUHYy9x3s7zqasLbu/a8uzXXH42Yhs3Kg1q jlh91YUx/aBgz3QWYMD+c74/LP3TEoVkq3UePFIFB+AAn2DB5Z0= X-Received: by 2002:a05:701a:ca8e:b0:119:e569:f61e with SMTP id a92af1059eb24-11f34bfaf3cmr8012045c88.23.1765814678652; Mon, 15 Dec 2025 08:04:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <32f8c689-314d-4a5e-9af6-2e3e704582e6n@googlegroups.com> <2ebbf019-a562-427d-93af-b88f0cf5658an@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: From: Greg Maxwell Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2025 16:04:27 +0000 X-Gm-Features: AQt7F2qP_c_tZdPfvlcBxrYURaIf36YTvHHusmsgvScg1P2OJR3oMg5CrukFPnA Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] The Cat, BIP draft discussion. To: Nona YoBidnes Cc: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a90c830645ffc488" X-Original-Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=XRIkNhxO; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gmaxwell@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::630 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=gmaxwell@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com; dara=pass header.i=@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 786775582512 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) --000000000000a90c830645ffc488 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 10:35=E2=80=AFAM Nona YoBidnes wrote: > Here, your argument runs completely opposite of the claim that "the miner > fees are the filter". You appear to be claiming that dping nothing about > spam, making it easier for spammers and being more accommodating to them = is > the way to go. Unfortunately, that's the approach we have taken for the > last 3 years while spam only gets worst. > On what basis do you claim that spam has 'only gotten worse'-- the existing setup is incredibly effective against spam, essentially blocking all forms of pointless data storage that aren't made more valuable by the limitations. What does go in, goes in at extremely high costs to the spammer. Of what concern is this residual traffic to Bitcoin use? It doesn't increase node resource use as that's governed by the capacity limits, in fact because it's generally much easier to process it speeds up block processing. It's substantially a non-issue. The proposed gain is some negligible one time reduction in utxo disk space. > > > Between 40 and 50% of the UTXO set is comprised of spam UTXOs with dust > amounts. Even more conservative estimates put it at 30%. The Cat would > remove those spam NMUs from the UTXO set. I hardly view that as negligibl= e. > It is negligible-- it's just a one time constant fraction. It will not increase the set of devices that can run a node in any meaningful sense. What improvement it provides could also be alternatively achieved through local only technical changes like changing how the data is stored. Furthermore, The Cat would send a strong signal to spammers: you are not > welcomed on Bitcoin, we are rugging you, and we might do it again. This > likely would reduce future spam activity on Bitcoin, further protecting t= he > UTXO set. > As I've pointed out, it won't stop their NFTs. They'll simply make a new rule in their NFT indexers that says that deleted NFT X will be owned by the first output created with the same (or cryptographically related) scriptPubKey. Doing so will give them free press-- probably the most valuable thing that could possibly be done for them--, cause them to make additional txn, and send a message that their NFTs are _unblockable_ because they are. Moreover, it would send a message to the whole world that your Bitcoin aren't safe. That an angry mob might confiscate them from you if you became unpopular enough in their eyes. That would be entirely at odds with the ethos of Bitcoin-- Bitcoin is money for enemies. Your ownership of Bitcoin shouldn't be up to popular vote-- if you're okay with money that operates at popular whim then you're better off with the fiat of a major democracy. Because of this this proposal just won't fly and this discussion is a waste of time and energy that could be otherwise used to actually improve Bitcoin. > Were such a proposal seriously advanced it would likely cause a new flood > of transactions both to move to evade it directly and as a result of NFT > indexer changes to just "wormhole" the tokens to new outputs after the fa= ct > (and a new marketing opportunity for the NFT gifters). > > > As Claire already explained, with millions of cases of spam, this would > cause a massive block space demand increase and a large fee spike which > would prove very costly to spammers. And retaking a new snapshot would > force them to do it again. Someone needs to feed the poor miners! > Existing data embedding traffic is already definitionally the tiny residual interest which is not particularly price sensitive or they wouldn't be on Bitcoin at all. In the case of NFTs the limitation makes their tokens more valuable by creating a limited supply or an otherwise endless asset class. "Claire"'s explanation is just false as it assumes they'd reembed the NFTs, but there is no reason for them to do that as the existence of an NFT isn't governed by Bitcoin's consensus rules but rather by the behavior of NFT indexers-- and they don't pay any attention to the UTXO set at all but rather watch the blockchain and maintain their own indexes. So post this proposal when you want to transfer your 'deleted' NFT you simply make one transaction paying your old scriptPubKey (or some related one, as per the revised NFT spec) and then pay that output to the new owner-- the extra cost to the NFT jockie is one extra in/out pair at their first transfer post 'deletion'. And god knows they may find a way to even reduce that further, my example is just the extremely obvious response and not whatever improved idea someone would come up with after actually thinking about it. > NFTs are just an imaginary parallel world that don't depend on the networ= k > to validate their activity, so they don't really care about the network's > rules, and as such the network's rules have pretty limited effect. > > So here, you are saying The Cat would be noneffective at reducing spam. > > And moreover the proposal would intentionally and knowingly confiscate > millions of dollars in funds. > > > You just finished telling us "the network rules have a pretty limited > effect" and now you tell us The Cat would result in the confiscation of > millions of dollars in funds. That sounds conflicting and contradictory = to > me. > The consensus rules govern the operations of *bitcoins* not NFTs. This proposal would delete their Bitcoins, based on the published figures (and the percentages in your post) it would be confiscate on the order of 358 Bitcoin. It wouldn't, however, confiscate their NFTs. Furthermore, dropping the spam UTXOs from the UTXO set would not delete any > spam, they still would have ownership of it, they just wouldn't be able t= o > sell it or transfer it to anyone else on L1. > It would steal their Bitcoin's but leave them able to continue transferring their NFTs. > Furthermore, those are all dust UTXOs. An unbelievably high amount of the= m > would have to be on chain to amount to "millions of dollars in funds". > Yes, but that is exactly what this proposal is claiming-- They're almost all >=3D546 satoshi in value. There are 164 million txouts, you and the proposals are saying 40-50% would be confiscated. Do the math. If they lose "millions of dollars in funds" as you claim, thus making their > business must less profitable, I would call that a success, not ineffecti= ve > at all. > I hope you step back and think carefully about what you're saying here. I, and many others, consider the aggressive anti-'spammers' to be a threat to Bitcoin in a way that some NFT nuisance traffic could never be due to the quick recourse to confiscation and censorship and the constant baiting of government interference by proposing technical means for transaction censorship and confiscation. Should I propose to confiscate the funds of Opsosoft and Ocean Mining (and you personally, of course) in order to discourage the continued efforts to screw with Bitcoin's central properties= ? It would be much more effective against you than it is against the NFT jockeys because at least the NFT degens would get to keep and continue to trade their NFTs. Fortunately for you (and everyone!) that just isn't how Bitcoin works: confiscation proposals are non-starters. But it says something significant about the level of derangement suffered by its advocates that someone had to tell someone who isn't a total Bitcoin newbie that it was a non-starter. You, presumably, do not consider yourself and your comrades a threat to Bitcoin, but nor do the NFT degens. Such determinations are highly subjective, and Bitcoins design and purpose was to minimize human judgement over how people get to store and use their own coins. An inherent consequence of that is that there will always be users and users we strongly disapprove of personally. Having seen the alternative in dollars and paypal and whatnot this is an acceptable cost. We should all still feel empowered to fight that which we think harms the world-- but the place for that kind of battle is outside of the Bitcoin protocol. Bitcoin is valuable because it strives to eliminate third party judgement from the ownership and usage by consenting parties. --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/= CAAS2fgQLKD1-DomvniTHLTvw52yeaKmOG-K__TnZeYJ%2Bc2hYFA%40mail.gmail.com. --000000000000a90c830645ffc488 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 10:35=E2=80=AFAM = Nona YoBidnes <pepehodler@gmail.= com> wrote:
Here, your argument runs completely opposite of the claim that "the miner fees are the filter". You appear to be claiming that dping nothi= ng about spam, making it easier for spammers and being more accommodating to them is the way to go. Unfortunately, that's the approach we have taken for the last 3 years while spam only gets worst.

On what basis do = you claim that spam has 'only gotten worse'--=C2=A0 the existing se= tup is incredibly effective against spam, essentially blocking all forms of= pointless data storage that aren't made more valuable by the limitatio= ns.=C2=A0 What does go in, goes in at extremely high costs to the spammer.= =C2=A0

Of what concern is this residual traffic to= Bitcoin use?=C2=A0 It doesn't increase node resource use as that's= governed by the capacity limits, in fact because it's generally much e= asier to process it speeds up block processing.=C2=A0 It's substantiall= y a non-issue.

The proposed gain is some negligible one time reduction in utxo disk space.

Between 40 and 50% of the UTXO set is comprised of spam UTXOs with dust amounts. Even more conservative estimates put it at 30%. The Cat would remove those spam NMUs from the UTXO set. I hardly view that as negligible.

It is neg= ligible-- it's just a one time constant fraction.=C2=A0 It will not inc= rease the set of devices that can run a node in any meaningful sense. What = improvement it provides could also be alternatively achieved through local = only technical changes like changing how the data is stored.

=
Furthermore, The Cat would s= end a strong signal to spammers: you are not welcomed on Bitcoin, we are rugging you, and we might do it again. This likely would reduce future spam activity on Bitcoin, further protecting the UTXO set.

As I've pointed out, it won't stop th= eir NFTs.=C2=A0 They'll simply make a new rule in their NFT indexers th= at says that deleted NFT X will be owned by the first output created with t= he same (or cryptographically related) scriptPubKey.=C2=A0 Doing so will gi= ve them free press-- probably the most valuable thing that could possibly b= e done for them--, cause them to make additional txn, and send a message th= at=C2=A0their NFTs are _unblockable_ because they are.=C2=A0

=
Moreover, it would send a message to the whole world that your B= itcoin aren't safe.=C2=A0 That an angry mob might confiscate them from = you if you became unpopular enough in their eyes.=C2=A0 That would be entir= ely at odds with the ethos of Bitcoin--=C2=A0 Bitcoin is money for enemies.= =C2=A0 Your ownership of Bitcoin shouldn't be up to popular=C2=A0vote--= if you're okay with money that operates at popular=C2=A0whim then you&= #39;re better off with the fiat of a major democracy.=C2=A0 Because of this= this proposal just won't fly and this discussion is a waste of time an= d energy that could be otherwise used to actually improve Bitcoin.
=C2=A0
Were such a proposal seriously advanced it would likely cause a new flood of transactions both to move to evade it directly and as a result of NFT indexer changes to just "wormhole" the tokens to n= ew outputs after the fact (and a new marketing opportunity=C2=A0for th= e NFT gifters).

=C2=A0= As Claire already explained, with millions of cases of spam, this would cause a massive block space demand increase and a large fee spike which would prove very costly to spammers. And retaking a new snapshot would force them to do it again. Someone needs to feed the poor miners!=C2=A0

E= xisting data embedding traffic is already definitionally the tiny residual = interest which is not particularly price sensitive or they wouldn't be = on Bitcoin at all.=C2=A0 In the case of NFTs the limitation makes their tok= ens more valuable by creating a limited supply or an otherwise endless asse= t class.=C2=A0 "Claire"'s explanation is just false as it ass= umes they'd reembed the NFTs, but there is no reason for them to do tha= t as the existence of an NFT isn't governed by Bitcoin's consensus = rules but rather by the behavior of NFT indexers-- and they don't pay a= ny attention to the UTXO set at all but rather watch the blockchain and mai= ntain their own indexes.=C2=A0 So post this proposal when you want to trans= fer your 'deleted' NFT you simply make one transaction paying your = old scriptPubKey (or some related one, as per the revised NFT spec) and the= n pay that output to the new owner-- the extra cost to the NFT jockie=C2=A0= is one extra in/out pair at their first transfer post 'deletion'.= =C2=A0 And god knows they may find a way to even reduce that further, my ex= ample is just the extremely obvious response and not whatever improved idea= someone would come up with after actually thinking about it.
=C2= =A0
NFTs are just an imaginary parallel world that don't depend on the network to validate their activity, so they don't really care about the network's rules, and as such the network's rules have prett= y limited effect.=C2=A0=C2=A0

So here, you are saying The Cat would be noneffective at reducing spam.=C2=A0

And moreover the proposal would intentionally and knowingly confiscate millions of dollars in funds.=C2=A0
=C2=A0
You just finished telling us "the network rules have a pretty limited effect" and now you tell us The Cat would result in the confiscation of millions of dollars in funds.=C2=A0 That sounds conflicting and contradictory to me.

=
The consensus rules govern the operations of *bitcoins* not NFTs.=C2= =A0 This proposal would delete their Bitcoins, based on the published figur= es (and the percentages in your post) it would be confiscate on the order o= f 358 Bitcoin.

It wouldn't, however, confiscat= e their NFTs.

Furthermore, dropping the spam UTXOs from the UTXO set would not delete any spam, they still would have ownership of it, they just wouldn't be able to sell it or transfer it to anyone else on L1.

It would steal their Bitcoin'= ;s but leave them able to continue transferring their NFTs.
=C2= =A0

Further= more, those are all dust UTXOs. An unbelievably high amount of them would have to be on chain to amount to "millions of dollars in funds".

Yes, but that is exa= ctly what this proposal is claiming-- They're almost all >=3D546 sat= oshi in value. There are 164 million txouts, you and the proposals are sayi= ng 40-50% would be confiscated.=C2=A0 Do the math.

If they lose "mi= llions of dollars in funds" as you claim, thus making their business must less profitable, I would call that a success, not ineffective at all.

I hope yo= u step back and think carefully about what you're saying here.

I, and many others, consider the aggressive anti-'spam= mers' to be a threat to Bitcoin in a way that some NFT nuisance traffic= could never be due to the quick recourse to confiscation and censorship an= d the constant baiting of government interference by proposing technical me= ans for transaction censorship and confiscation. Should I propose to confis= cate the funds of Opsosoft and Ocean Mining (and you personally, of course)= in order to discourage the continued efforts to screw with Bitcoin's c= entral properties?

It would be much more effective= against you than it is against the NFT jockeys because at least the NFT de= gens would get to keep and continue to trade their NFTs.

Fort= unately for you (and everyone!) that just isn't how Bitcoin works: conf= iscation proposals are non-starters.=C2=A0 But it says something significan= t about the level of derangement suffered by its advocates that someone had= to tell someone who isn't a total Bitcoin newbie that it was a non-sta= rter.

You, presumably, do not consider yourse= lf and=20 your=C2=A0comrades a threat to Bitcoin, but nor do the NFT degens.=C2=A0 Su= ch=20 determinations are highly subjective, and Bitcoins design and purpose=20 was to minimize human judgement over how people get to store and use=20 their own coins.=C2=A0 An inherent consequence of that is that there will a= lways be users and users we strongly disapprove of personally.=C2=A0 Having= seen the alternative in dollars and paypal and whatnot this is an acceptab= le cost.

We should all still feel empowered to fig= ht that which we think harms the world-- but the place for that kind of bat= tle is outside of the Bitcoin protocol.=C2=A0 Bitcoin is valuable because i= t strives to eliminate third party judgement from the ownership and usage b= y consenting parties.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bitcoind= ev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/= msgid/bitcoindev/CAAS2fgQLKD1-DomvniTHLTvw52yeaKmOG-K__TnZeYJ%2Bc2hYFA%40ma= il.gmail.com.
--000000000000a90c830645ffc488--