From: Nona YoBidnes <pepehodler@gmail.com>
To: Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>, bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] The Cat, BIP draft discussion.
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2025 03:35:08 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ae116ad9-1295-4220-891c-12ec9969ca05@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgR91F1-3HuQ16iVoT9XeyrFXtZ94_t6bWUL0QbLNRVhHw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5151 bytes --]
Hi Greg and list,
Techniques to minimize usage are well understood, widely deployed,
and the cost of storing data that way is very high so none happens
except by those who are very motivated and financially capable (and
that motivation and means results in speed bumps having little
effect, -- or even positive effect, as the remaining abuses appear
to find bitcoin's costs/restrictions highly desirable to create
scarcity for their tokens).
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.
The reality is that making it harder, more costly, and less convenient
for spammers to keep going will result in less spam, not more. While
it's possible that the remaining spam might be valued higher by the
market, I don't really care about the price of spam, I only care to
reduce the amount of it, not the price. Less spam is the objective here.
I'm not concerned with the price of spam, only the quantity of spam.
You seem to approach spam like a bullied kid, afraid that if we fight
back against spam, the big mean spam bully might spam us harder. I can't
accept this kind of approach. Bitcoin requires and adversarial mindset,
not one of compliance and submission when faced with an attacker.
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. 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 the UTXO set.
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 fact (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!
> 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 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. 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.
Furthermore, 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". This should give us a clue about the scale of the problem. I
hope you get on board with The Cat now, not in a few years when it will
be a much bigger problem in the billions of dollars in funds, not mere
millions.
> This is outright theft, and I believe it makes the idea a total
> non-starter.
Not confiscation, not theft, as they spam would remain on chain, they
simply would not be able to sell their spam on Bitcoin, therefore The
Cat would deincintivize them from profiting on Bitcoin. Furthermore,
they could opt to consolidate they multiple dust UTXOs and avoid losing
their bitcoin, prior to activation of The Cat.
> They absolutely will be valued by this proposal stealing their
> bitcoins, but their NFT grifting will not ultimately be effected
> otherwise.
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
ineffective at all.
Thank you, I am the founder and CEO of Opsosoft S.A de S.V. , coder, and
bitcoiner since 2016.
--
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 email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/ae116ad9-1295-4220-891c-12ec9969ca05%40gmail.com.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7893 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-15 16:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <32f8c689-314d-4a5e-9af6-2e3e704582e6n@googlegroups.com>
[not found] ` <CAAS2fgRR77nZj3-rJo70dnxe8Lma88-C9JqdVTYfXGHRgFu3pA@mail.gmail.com>
2025-12-11 20:54 ` Bitcoin Mechanic
2025-12-12 1:49 ` TwoLargePizzas
2025-12-13 15:02 ` Greg Maxwell
2025-12-14 1:51 ` Pepe Hodler
2025-12-15 10:35 ` Nona YoBidnes [this message]
2025-12-15 16:04 ` Greg Maxwell
2025-12-12 17:13 ` [bitcoindev] " Jonathan Voss
2025-12-12 23:40 ` Greg Maxwell
2025-12-13 3:54 ` Melvin Carvalho
2025-12-13 7:07 ` Ataraxia 009
2025-12-17 16:22 ` Jonathan Voss
2025-12-19 3:31 ` Greg Maxwell
2025-12-21 5:07 ` John
2025-12-23 19:12 ` Greg Maxwell
2025-12-24 17:19 ` waxwing/ AdamISZ
2025-12-30 14:36 ` Antoine Riard
2026-01-19 1:11 ` Pepe Hodler
2026-01-23 3:45 ` Chris Riley
2026-01-23 13:55 ` Galois Field
2026-01-22 1:14 ` Claire Ostrom
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ae116ad9-1295-4220-891c-12ec9969ca05@gmail.com \
--to=pepehodler@gmail.com \
--cc=bitcoindev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=gmaxwell@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox