-
@ GLACA/PETER MOHAMED
2025-05-17 00:48:05
I get the analogy, but it doesn’t really hold up.
An email spam filter protects your inbox. A mempool filter pretends to protect the network—but it actually just filters what your node sees. Meanwhile, the rest of the network keeps moving. Miners include those transactions anyway, and your node ends up processing them later. So you’re not blocking spam—you’re doing double work and fragmenting relay paths.
This isn’t taking back power—it’s isolating yourself.
Also, miners aren’t “bypassing” standard transactions. They’re following consensus rules and prioritizing fees. That’s how Bitcoin has always worked. If you want to change that, you’re not defending Bitcoin—you’re redefining it.
And let’s be real: the idea that nodes rejecting valid transactions will lead to orphan blocks and punish miners economically just doesn’t line up with how incentives actually work. It sounds good, but it’s not how this system plays out in reality.
If we care about small nodes and decentralization, the answer isn’t stricter filters—it’s minimizing unnecessary complexity, keeping consensus clear, and letting the open fee market do its job.
Permissionless doesn’t mean chaos. It means neutrality. That’s what keeps Bitcoin resilient.