@DylanLeClair Whether one is for or against BIP110, this kind of argument is dumb. No technical implementation will stop a well funded and determined spammer. That doesn't mean there's no value in adding friction.
More @tether news today, this time from Bloomberg @business, which lays out the full timeline of Gross @HowardLutnick and @BoHines' work on behalf of Devasini while in the @realdonaldtrump admin. The highlights:
https://t.co/Gsn2dfg7hs
@giacomozucco Giacomo will never tell it like it really is because he can't change his god damn peaceful rebellious nature. This is why we love you, even more those who can read in-between the lines.
Vermisstenfahndung, bitte teilen!
Seit Freitag, 17.07.2026, wird eine 85-Jährige aus München-Haidhausen vermisst. Sie befindet sich möglicherweise in einer hilflosen Lage.
Bild und Infos unter:
https://t.co/pHag6CuIlQ
Bitte keine Hinweise auf X, sondern direkt an die 110.
@ToneVays What happens to miners who keep mining the non BIP110 chain, in case of a fork, when the user base is gone due to the lack of confidence from users that their chain is the hard money chain, just a decentralised storage. Not arguing it will be or not. Just rationalising here.
This is the problem with the "but but but the fee market will push the spam use cases out" argument: there is no argument... When you ask for it, you get zilch.
@Toma_7_32 BIP-110 introduces censorship - for all the right reasons - but it's still censorship.
For me it's a no-brainer. People can spam the blockchain with arbitrary data if they want, but it'll be costly.
Pure monetary transactions will always outbid them.