SPAM INSTITUTIONS AND BIP110 Some of you think that BIP110 was rejected by the miners for various false reasons. Let me demonstrate the real reason why BIP110 was rejected. To the left, we see 3 of 6 the big hasher pools that control over 90% of the network. When you look into who owns who, it's really more like 2 pools. The blocks of those pools are all 100% full, while the blocks of the smaller pools on the right at not always full. One of the reasons for this is that the spammers have entered into an agreement with the hasher cartel to bypass the policies and fill every empty block space with spam, all at a very low fee. On the right, red shows the empty section of blocks. As a result of this, spam now takes up half of block space, and they pay 4x less than monetary users for the same block space. This is why BIP110 was ignored. The spammers and the hasher pools got together behind closed doors and decided they run the show now.

FIRST WEEKLY XBT SPAM REPORT This is the first of weekly spam reports for XBT. It's not looking good. If we ignore the replayed transactions which are going to go away gradually, and we look at the transactions only on the XBT chain, here are some of the results: - 59% of the tx outputs on XBT are dust (1000 sats or less) or of 0.8¢ or less - 93% of the tx inputs on XBT are dust amounts, under 0.8¢. - 88% of the XBT transaction size is spam. - 99.9% of multisig inputs on XBT are spam. - 99.6% of dust inputs on XBT are spam. I won't name the site responsible for this garbage. But it's a single disgusting person who is trying to gain traction to drum up clients for his sick spam busines. THE SOLUTION? A filter that enforces a 500 sats (0.4¢) for every sig in a multisig would cost 1500 sats (1.2¢) to this most commom multisig tx, instead of the 158 sat (0.1¢) he paid: 16221b6d42bf7c88f989cb9875d0ef7396e61250881d747d18b5417accc7a326 A less common multisig like this one would cost 10,500 sats (8.1¢) instead of the 1,467 sats (1.1¢) fee that was paid: a1bb7a5569b25ab30217fa0db039e3b0abfaf2a92d61eac4ad9c7e496c18003c But a smallish spam tx like this one would end up having to pay 1,912,500 sats ($14.82) instead of the 48,029 sats (37.2¢) he actually paid: 6e5f40c41e004b3b2cc8a459b73e42e2e8a8eb43fb761d07c7757927684ec59f And the larger spam tx like this one would end up having to pay 3,595,000 sats ($27.78) instead of the 179,996 sats ($1.40) he paid: 9440286ef590cfaaf8c10f27097343c50be8f2de767cdfe2daabb5627748a685 Personally, I would be comfortable with a 1000 sats (0.8¢) per multisig sig. During the scan period, that asshole spent 30,317,400 sats ($299.75) to post his garbage. Even a 500 sat/sig tax would force him to spend 1,075,905,000 sats ($8,202) or roughly $1,170 per day. The problem is about adjusting the tax with price. I though that a magic number from an external index would be a problem. I think a fairly acceptable proxy of fiat price within the system would be to adjust the tax with difficulty adjustments. I don't know if that is possible or reasonable. That's were we need the big brain devs to come in. And other way to adjust the "spam tax" fee price would be to rely on updates to adjust the default. Or just trust the individual nodes to adjust properly. But let's not pretend here that defaults don't matter. Until a better "spam tax" adjustment method comes along, I am going to trust updates to do it. That's the most simple solution too. It's still in it's early stages. Please support this filter and ask that it be merged in the next Knots release. This filter, or something else that would mitigate this nonsense. github.com/bitcoinknots/bitc…