“There’s a difference between strong and oil rig strong.” -Roughneck Proverb
Miners do not benefit from arbitrary data on Bitcoin any more than a heroin addict benefits from heroin. The high-time preference view, that miners are obligated to blindly chase fees at all costs, is not game theory in action but a mundane fiat-minded race to the bottom that ails much of the legacy financial system. The rational miner, like any rational actor, weighs the long-term costs and benefits of their actions beyond the fleeting “high” of the next block.
We use the term “arbitrary data” here rather than “spam,” as the latter carries a negative connotation and can be difficult to define in a way that satisfies everyone. “Arbitrary data” is a more neutral term that gets to the heart of the matter without bogging us down in endless philosophical debates such as whether a legitimate Nigerian barrister truly needs to email an elderly widow in Poughkeepsie about a time-sensitive financial matter.
As miners, we are often told that we should remain neutral toward the transactions that enter our blocks and judge them solely by their fee rate. This, we are assured, preserves Bitcoin’s censorship resistance and protocol neutrality. But censorship resistance and neutrality do not require us to play dumb. We have eyes and ears. We can observe what is happening in the Bitcoin ecosystem. We can listen to feedback from our customers and the validators who run nodes. It is not censorship to heed the Bitcoiners who demand functional blocks and the nodes that validate and store them. If they make it clear that arbitrary data is a nuisance, we do not have to pretend otherwise.
Doing what our customers and validators want is not “going against the free market.” It is the free market at work. There is a reason companies pay handsomely for market research and customer feedback. The insights are worth far more, by orders of magnitude, than their cost. Some will claim we act against our own interests by rejecting valid, fee-paying transactions. Nothing could be further from the truth. By listening to what Bitcoiners want and expect from their vendors, we help both them and ourselves.
Miners benefit from rejecting arbitrary data in several concrete ways. Arbitrary data competes directly with payments for scarce block space. When it dominates transactions (roughly 70% at the time of writing), it discourages Bitcoin’s use as a payment network. Note that payments competing with other payments differs fundamentally from payments competing with unrelated uses. We believe a peer-to-peer cash network is far more valuable than a data storage network; for hodlers, users, miners, and humanity at large. Squeezing a few extra sats by filling blocks with data is like dropping dimes to chase a nickel. It appears productive but burdens node runners who must store that data in perpetuity and allocate more RAM and resources to validate our blocks.
The network’s overall value and resiliency suffer far more than the sats gained. Miners benefit more by attracting new users to Bitcoin than by enabling high-time preference actors to offload their data storage costs onto the chain for a one-time fee. If network resiliency weakens, so does the censorship resistance and neutrality that Bitcoiners value. None of this is a novel idea within Bitcoin stewardship. Bitcoin Core developers, and even Satoshi himself, have held similar views. What is novel is the recent reframing of efforts to limit arbitrary data as “censorship.” Notably, the loudest voices making this claim often stand to gain financially from the next token pump-and-dump.
Tourists who use Bitcoin to enrich themselves through arbitrary data schemes harm the network long-term. Miners are not immune from this harm. That's not onboarding new users; that's looking the other way while victims lose money and absolving ourselves with a shrug while muttering “free market.” This is not only immoral, it is bad for our bottom line, bad for neutrality, bad for censorship resistance, and bad for humanity.
It might feel good to pee in the pool, but that doesn't make it okay.
Legends. You will be remembered for your part in this
We know you! You're a legend in our eyes.
Roughneck Chronicles 2: The Rational Miner
“There’s a difference between strong and oil rig strong.” -Roughneck Proverb
Miners do not benefit from arbitrary data on Bitcoin any more than a heroin addict benefits from heroin. The high-time preference view, that miners are obligated to blindly chase fees at all costs, is not game theory in action but a mundane fiat-minded race to the bottom that ails much of the legacy financial system. The rational miner, like any rational actor, weighs the long-term costs and benefits of their actions beyond the fleeting “high” of the next block.
We use the term “arbitrary data” here rather than “spam,” as the latter carries a negative connotation and can be difficult to define in a way that satisfies everyone. “Arbitrary data” is a more neutral term that gets to the heart of the matter without bogging us down in endless philosophical debates such as whether a legitimate Nigerian barrister truly needs to email an elderly widow in Poughkeepsie about a time-sensitive financial matter.
As miners, we are often told that we should remain neutral toward the transactions that enter our blocks and judge them solely by their fee rate. This, we are assured, preserves Bitcoin’s censorship resistance and protocol neutrality. But censorship resistance and neutrality do not require us to play dumb. We have eyes and ears. We can observe what is happening in the Bitcoin ecosystem. We can listen to feedback from our customers and the validators who run nodes. It is not censorship to heed the Bitcoiners who demand functional blocks and the nodes that validate and store them. If they make it clear that arbitrary data is a nuisance, we do not have to pretend otherwise.
Doing what our customers and validators want is not “going against the free market.” It is the free market at work. There is a reason companies pay handsomely for market research and customer feedback. The insights are worth far more, by orders of magnitude, than their cost. Some will claim we act against our own interests by rejecting valid, fee-paying transactions. Nothing could be further from the truth. By listening to what Bitcoiners want and expect from their vendors, we help both them and ourselves.
Miners benefit from rejecting arbitrary data in several concrete ways. Arbitrary data competes directly with payments for scarce block space. When it dominates transactions (roughly 70% at the time of writing), it discourages Bitcoin’s use as a payment network. Note that payments competing with other payments differs fundamentally from payments competing with unrelated uses. We believe a peer-to-peer cash network is far more valuable than a data storage network; for hodlers, users, miners, and humanity at large. Squeezing a few extra sats by filling blocks with data is like dropping dimes to chase a nickel. It appears productive but burdens node runners who must store that data in perpetuity and allocate more RAM and resources to validate our blocks.
The network’s overall value and resiliency suffer far more than the sats gained. Miners benefit more by attracting new users to Bitcoin than by enabling high-time preference actors to offload their data storage costs onto the chain for a one-time fee. If network resiliency weakens, so does the censorship resistance and neutrality that Bitcoiners value. None of this is a novel idea within Bitcoin stewardship. Bitcoin Core developers, and even Satoshi himself, have held similar views. What is novel is the recent reframing of efforts to limit arbitrary data as “censorship.” Notably, the loudest voices making this claim often stand to gain financially from the next token pump-and-dump.
Tourists who use Bitcoin to enrich themselves through arbitrary data schemes harm the network long-term. Miners are not immune from this harm. That's not onboarding new users; that's looking the other way while victims lose money and absolving ourselves with a shrug while muttering “free market.” This is not only immoral, it is bad for our bottom line, bad for neutrality, bad for censorship resistance, and bad for humanity.
It might feel good to pee in the pool, but that doesn't make it okay.
https://twiiit.com/Roughnecks110/status/2078820263375036710