ROUND 2 - 4 YEARS PROGRESSION OF SPAM ON THE CORE CHAIN Here I took a 3 block snapshot with 40,000 blocks intervals (roughtly a year apart) over 4 years. The blue tiles are monetary txs and the red tiles are spam garbage. Some sceptics accused me of selecting specific blocks to make the spam problems look worst. So I re-did the scan and I post here exactly how the blocks were selected: And please notice how spam was paying a lot more in fees in 2022. But today spam pays far less than monetary users in miner fee for the same block space.

Just beautiful, isn't it?

WORST OFFENDER BLOCK OF THE WEEK And this week's Darwin award goes to AntPool and block #971713. 99.32% of the block size is pure fucking garbage (in red) with 1.57 MB of spam against only 0.01 BM of monetary data. In this block, monetary users paid 6.1x more for the same block space, versus spammers. 7137 txs, and only 32 of them were monetary transactions. And here, the spam fees make up 0.1% of total miner onchain profit for this block. Thank you, AntPool, you fucking assholes!!

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.

This kind of sickness will become more and more prominent in the spamcoin sphere.

WEEKLY SPAM CHAIN REPORT Weekly report of the state of spam on the spam chain (BTC). This week, spam took up 25.86% (414.3 MB) of the blocks size and paid only 14.7% of the miner fees, resulting in spam paying 2x cheaper than monetary users for the same block space. Surprisingly, this is a rather drastic reduction in spam when compared to last week's 43.51% of block space. Spam appears to be paying the same fee rate as last week, but monetary users are paying far less: 0.87 sats/B versus 2.24 sat/B for last week. The miner cartel has been filling up empty block space with garbage cheap op_return spam. It appears that a higher rate of monetary activity is displacing this filth - the miner cartel is running out of cheap empty spaces. I may or may not publish a report next week due to changes in my personal life.

A new article and last in the series from our space cat friend is landing tomorrow. Hold on to your socks, plebs!!

SPAM KILLER ON XBT EXPLAINED IN EASY TERMS github.com/bitcoinknots/b… So allow me to try to explain how this proposed filter will work in very simple terms. As simple as I can. And if you can't understand, it just really means it won't affect your transactions at all. A multisig input has keys like 2 of 3. Meaning 3 people have the keys to spent it, you just need 2 of them to agree to spend it. In a 2 of 3 multisig, 3 is the total number or keys, 2 is the spending keys, and 1 is the excess key. The formula to calculate fee-limit for our proposed spam filter goes like this: (excess key(s) - 1) x 1000 sats. In the case of a 2 of 3, the fee-limit is 0, so you are unaffected by the filter. - 99.8% of the transactions will not be affected by this filter. Including the most popular 2 of 3 multisig. - 0.18% of the transactions will have to pay ~0.6¢ in miner fees to stay in line with policy. - 0.02% of the more complex transactions will have to pay ~1¢ to 50¢ in miner fees. But the spammers will feel the brunt of this filter, having to pay $10 to $60 in miner fees. These figures are based on a 1 week / 1008 blocks sample scan on the chain ending earlier this week. I should also say that a weakness of this proposal is that violent price swings could make the filter too aggressive, or too weak. So we have to rely on individual nodes to adjust the setting appropriately, or for the devs to adjust defaults with frequent releases. With suggested settings and current price, the spammer would have to pay over $1500 of miner fees per day to keep up his current volume, instead of the less than $60/day he is currently spending. So basically, there will be a very small amount of pain endured by less than 0.2% of the pleb transactions, while spammers would have to pay over $2000 per day in miner fees over the last week, instead of the less than $40 per day they paid. Please support this filter. Discuss it with the devs and the community. And look into other proposals to get over this spam problem we are experiencing. @LukeDashjr @cguida6 @GrassFedBitcoin @GregTonoski @dathon_ohm @mattkratter

Some guys don't like this proposal because they think it's a form of taxation. If it is, it's 99% focused on the spammer with very minimal impact on pleb txs. But if that is a worry, we could put an expiration date on the filter so a to reduce the sour taste of "taxation".

It's hero slaying time!

I've been thinking long and hard about this 1 year CBM thing. I do know that the biggest danger to bitcoin is the urge and natural tendency towards centralising everything. It's a hard problem to mitigate, very hard. And 1 year CBM seems pretty extreme to me. But the problem we try to address is also pretty extreme. I don't know if a pushed far CBM is a good thing or not. And it's not really my decision anyways, it belongs to all of us to decide. And it's likely to happen without my stamp of approval anyways. I just hope it does what we want it to do.

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…

Calling all XBTers. Let's have an adult conversation please. I was flabbergasted when core decided to blow up the op_return from 83 bytes all the way to 100,000 bytes. I though that was pure stupidity, reckless, and not responsible at all. Do you agree? Yes? Because XBTers are getting ready to do the sane thing. You are getting ready to blow up the CBM from 100 blocks (18 hours) to 52,000 blocks (1 year). Please guys. Think about this seriously. This makes no sense.