Delivery-date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 13:47:14 -0700
Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gmaxwell@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::52c as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::52c;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cbdab6fa-93bc-44c9-80f0-6c68c6554f56n@googlegroups.com>
 <CAAS2fgRFP+BJUZR7h01=7=qamD5qEW6OYJikTMR=5RkxTCEMZg@mail.gmail.com> <CAAANnUzf4SfgcixLuS0Uwe6pNyFWAtufzLuJrDdpnBwyU2bU7A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAANnUzf4SfgcixLuS0Uwe6pNyFWAtufzLuJrDdpnBwyU2bU7A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 20:01:20 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSCORx7DHD6NCynh2rhnRbFgofLShZdqD9QwWO3fxyRWw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] [BIP Proposal] Mempool Validation and Relay Policies
 via User-Defined Scripts
To: Chris Guida <chrisguida@gmail.com>
Cc: me@drbonez.dev, 
	Bitcoin Development Mailing List <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d59cd6063f91843f"
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com

--000000000000d59cd6063f91843f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Because if you have a need to regulate traffic through your node there is
one, simple, perfectly effective way-- blocksonly.  Any other way is
ineffective (dramatically so if you wish to reduce traffic, as filtering
generally doesn't) and has collateral damage potential.

From the discussion in public the motivation to do otherwise is an attempt
to regulate the conduct of third parties. This is
fundamentally authoritarian, it would still be authoritarian even if
implemented in a distributed way.  E.g. if a theocratic populist movement
acted to prohibit sex for any purpose except reproduction (as advocated by
the most prominent filter propents) such as by public stonings of people
caught fornicating it would be just as authoritarian as if established by a
dictator.  In my view the fundamental nature of authoritarianism is people
who believe they know better to such an extent that they actively
interfere with the consensual conduct of third parties.  Historically most
authoritarianism has taken centralized forms, but this is partially just an
implementation detail similar to how cultures have adopted representative
democracy over direct democracy.  Centralized authoritarianism is itself
normally via a group like a state government, but just one with restricted
membership.   Technology can enable distributed authoritarianism like the
cancel culture of filter proponents.

More importantly, I disagree that there is any meaningful democratization
here-- to have any significant effects on the behavior of third parties,
some external mechanism must coordinate the content of filters.  Were this
not the case, you could simply say "my filtering node software exists and
is available, problem solved!" -- but you're not doing that, because to
have any effect (to the limited extent that you can) you essentially need
to convince everyone or at least most people to apply the same restrictions=
.

The fact that a mechanism isn't proposed here just obscures the matter
because one will arise out of necessity (or, alternatively, the proposal
would just not be used to a meaningful degree).  In essence the proposal
(or ones like it like the one being developed in knots) are technological
instruments of authoritarian censorship.  Sure they don't have all the
components yet to complete their natural conclusion.

> which is that the core maintainers decide all the defaults

Defaults? well duh, yes any author of software decides its defaults and
that is unchanged in this proposal.  Nor does it change persons own ability
to change their node behavior, as adjustments to policy are quite simple
and with the LLMs that power most filter advocates arguments even a
non-programmer can adjust them.  What it does accomplish over that is the
ability to take a live feed of censorship rules from a third party.

Why doesn't core ship blocks only?  Core attempts to model what will get
mined.  My blocks only recommendation was for parties that prioritize
conserving resources or avoiding various unconfirmed traffic over
accurately modeling what will get mined.


On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 7:16=E2=80=AFPM Chris Guida <chrisguida@gmail.com> =
wrote:

> Hi Aiden -
>
> This is a very interesting proposal! It certainly has the potential to
> reduce tension over mempool policy by removing decisions over mempool
> policy from bitcoin core's maintainers, who, if I understand correctly, a=
re
> not very interested in being the arbiters of policy over the bitcoin
> network anyway.
>
> This seems like an excellent way to let users decide which transactions
> they will relay and which ones they won't, which core maintainers have no
> control over anyway.
>
> I'm cautiously optimistic that this proposal can help break the logjam.
>
> Greg -
>
> I'm somewhat confused as to your reaction here. This proposal democratize=
s
> access to filter authorship; it does not seem in any way "authoritarian" =
to
> me. On the contrary, this proposal seems less "authoritarian" than the
> current state of affairs, which is that the core maintainers decide all t=
he
> defaults.
>
> >If you're not doing that you might as well set blocks only.
>
> Why is running blocksonly more beneficial than relaying some transactions
> and not others? Why does bitcoin core not default to blocksonly (or no
> filters at all) if partial filtration is undesirable?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> --Chris Guida
>
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 12:47=E2=80=AFPM Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com=
> wrote:
>
>> This appears to substantially misunderstands the purpose of the mempool
>> broadly in the network-- it's purpose is to model what will get mined.  =
If
>> you're not doing that you might as well set blocks only.
>> Significant discrepancies are harmful to the system and promote
>> centralization and fail to achieve a useful purpose in any case.  What
>> marginal benefits might be provided do not justify building and deployin=
g
>> the technological infrastructure for massive censorship.
>>
>> If you think this is important, I advise you to select another
>> cryptocurrency which is compatible with such authoritarian leanings.  --
>> though I am unsure if any exist since it is such a transparently pointle=
ss
>> direction.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 6:30=E2=80=AFPM Aiden McClelland <me@drbonez.dev=
> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I'd like to share for discussion a draft BIP to allow for a modular
>>> mempool/relay policy: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1985
>>>
>>> I think it could potentially reduce conflict within the community aroun=
d
>>> relay policy, as an alternative to running lots of different node
>>> implementations/forks when there are disagreements.
>>>
>>> I am working on a reference implementation using Bellard's QuickJS, but
>>> it has been almost a decade since I've written C++, so it's slow going =
and
>>> I'm sure doesn't follow best-practices. Once it's working, it can be
>>> cleaned up.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Aiden McClelland
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/cbdab6fa-93bc-44c9-80f0-6c=
68c6554f56n%40googlegroups.com
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/cbdab6fa-93bc-44c9-80f0-6=
c68c6554f56n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter>
>>> .
>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group=
s
>> "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send a=
n
>> email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CAAS2fgRFP%2BBJUZR7h01%3D7%=
3DqamD5qEW6OYJikTMR%3D5RkxTCEMZg%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CAAS2fgRFP%2BBJUZR7h01%3D7=
%3DqamD5qEW6OYJikTMR%3D5RkxTCEMZg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_s=
ource=3Dfooter>
>> .
>>
>

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/=
CAAS2fgSCORx7DHD6NCynh2rhnRbFgofLShZdqD9QwWO3fxyRWw%40mail.gmail.com.

--000000000000d59cd6063f91843f
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Because if you have a need to regulate traffic throug=
h your node there is one, simple, perfectly effective way-- blocksonly.=C2=
=A0 Any other way is ineffective (dramatically so if you wish to reduce tra=
ffic, as filtering generally doesn&#39;t) and has collateral damage potenti=
al.</div><div><br></div><div>From the discussion in public the motivation t=
o do otherwise is an attempt to regulate the conduct of third parties. This=
 is fundamentally=C2=A0authoritarian,=C2=A0it would still be authoritarian =
even if implemented in a distributed way.=C2=A0 E.g. if a theocratic populi=
st movement acted to prohibit sex for any purpose except reproduction (as a=
dvocated by the most prominent=C2=A0filter propents) such as by public ston=
ings of people caught fornicating it would be just as authoritarian as if e=
stablished by a dictator.=C2=A0 In my view the fundamental=C2=A0nature of a=
uthoritarianism is people who believe they know better to such an extent th=
at they actively interfere=C2=A0with the consensual=C2=A0conduct of third p=
arties.=C2=A0 Historically most authoritarianism=C2=A0has taken centralized=
 forms, but this is partially just an implementation detail similar to how =
cultures have adopted representative democracy over direct democracy.=C2=A0=
 Centralized authoritarianism is itself normally via a group like a state g=
overnment, but just one with restricted membership.=C2=A0 =C2=A0Technology =
can enable=C2=A0distributed authoritarianism=C2=A0like the cancel culture o=
f filter proponents.</div><div><br></div><div>More importantly, I disagree =
that there is any meaningful democratization here-- to have any significant=
 effects on the behavior of third parties, some external mechanism must coo=
rdinate the content of filters.=C2=A0 Were this not the case, you could sim=
ply say &quot;my filtering node software exists and is available, problem s=
olved!&quot; -- but you&#39;re not doing that, because to have any effect (=
to the limited extent that you can) you essentially need to convince everyo=
ne or at least most people to apply the same restrictions.</div><div><br></=
div><div>The fact that a mechanism isn&#39;t proposed here just obscures th=
e matter because one will arise out of necessity (or, alternatively, the pr=
oposal would just not be used to a meaningful degree).=C2=A0 In essence the=
 proposal (or ones like it like the one being developed in knots) are techn=
ological instruments of authoritarian censorship.=C2=A0 Sure they don&#39;t=
 have all the components yet to complete their natural conclusion.</div><di=
v><br></div><div>&gt;=C2=A0which is that the core maintainers decide all th=
e defaults</div><div><br></div><div>Defaults? well duh, yes any author of s=
oftware decides its defaults and that is unchanged in this proposal.=C2=A0 =
Nor does it change persons own ability to change their node behavior, as ad=
justments to policy are quite simple and with the LLMs that power most filt=
er advocates arguments even a non-programmer can adjust them.=C2=A0 What it=
 does accomplish over that is the ability to take a live feed of censorship=
 rules from a third party.</div><div><br></div><div>Why doesn&#39;t core sh=
ip blocks only?=C2=A0 Core attempts to model what will get mined.=C2=A0 My =
blocks only recommendation was for parties that prioritize conserving resou=
rces or avoiding various unconfirmed traffic over accurately modeling=C2=A0=
what will get mined.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div=
><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quot=
e gmail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, Sep =
24, 2025 at 7:16=E2=80=AFPM Chris Guida &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:chrisguida@gm=
ail.com">chrisguida@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"=
gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(20=
4,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hi Aiden - </div><div><b=
r></div><div>This is a very interesting proposal! It certainly has the pote=
ntial to reduce tension over mempool policy by removing decisions over memp=
ool policy from bitcoin core&#39;s maintainers, who, if I understand correc=
tly, are not very interested in being the arbiters of policy over the bitco=
in network anyway.</div><div><br></div><div>This seems like an excellent wa=
y to let users decide which transactions they will relay and which ones the=
y won&#39;t, which core maintainers have no control over anyway.</div><div>=
<br></div><div>I&#39;m cautiously optimistic that this proposal can help br=
eak the logjam.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Greg -</div><div><br></div><di=
v>I&#39;m somewhat confused as to your reaction here. This proposal democra=
tizes access to filter authorship; it does not seem in any way &quot;author=
itarian&quot; to me. On the contrary, this proposal seems less &quot;author=
itarian&quot; than the current state of affairs, which is that the core mai=
ntainers decide all the defaults.<br></div><div><br></div><div>&gt;If you&#=
39;re not doing that you might as well set blocks only.</div><div><br></div=
><div>Why is running blocksonly more beneficial than relaying some transact=
ions and not others? Why does bitcoin core not default to blocksonly (or no=
 filters at all) if partial filtration is undesirable?</div><div><br></div>=
<div>Kind regards,</div><div><br></div><div>--Chris Guida<br></div></div><b=
r><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, =
Sep 24, 2025 at 12:47=E2=80=AFPM Greg Maxwell &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gmaxwel=
l@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gmaxwell@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><=
blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-l=
eft:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>This=
 appears to substantially=C2=A0misunderstands the purpose of the mempool br=
oadly in the network-- it&#39;s purpose is to model what will get mined.=C2=
=A0 If you&#39;re not doing that you might as well set blocks only.=C2=A0 S=
ignificant=C2=A0discrepancies=C2=A0are harmful to the system and promote ce=
ntralization=C2=A0and fail to achieve a useful purpose in any case.=C2=A0 W=
hat marginal benefits might be provided do not justify=C2=A0building and de=
ploying the technological=C2=A0infrastructure=C2=A0for massive censorship.<=
/div><div><br></div><div>If you think this is important, I advise you to se=
lect another cryptocurrency which is compatible with such authoritarian=C2=
=A0leanings.=C2=A0 -- though I am unsure if any exist since it is such a tr=
ansparently pointless direction.</div><div><br></div></div><br><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, Sep 24, 2025=
 at 6:30=E2=80=AFPM Aiden McClelland &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:me@drbonez.dev" =
target=3D"_blank">me@drbonez.dev</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rg=
b(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>Hi all,</div><div><br></div><div>I=
9;d like to share for discussion a draft BIP to allow for a modular mempool=
/relay policy: <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1985" target=
=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1985</a><br><br></div><div=
>I think it could potentially reduce conflict within the community around r=
elay policy, as an alternative to running lots of different node implementa=
tions/forks when there are disagreements.</div><div><br></div><div>I am wor=
king on a reference implementation using Bellard&#39;s QuickJS, but it has =
been almost a decade since I&#39;ve written C++, so it&#39;s slow going and=
 I&#39;m sure doesn&#39;t follow best-practices. Once it&#39;s working, it =
can be cleaned up.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Aiden McClell=
and<br></div>

<p></p>

-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List&quot; group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com" target=
=3D"_blank">bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To view this discussion visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/=
bitcoindev/cbdab6fa-93bc-44c9-80f0-6c68c6554f56n%40googlegroups.com?utm_med=
ium=3Demail&amp;utm_source=3Dfooter" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.googl=
e.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/cbdab6fa-93bc-44c9-80f0-6c68c6554f56n%40googlegrou=
ps.com</a>.<br>
</blockquote></div>

<p></p>

-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List&quot; group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com" target=
=3D"_blank">bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To view this discussion visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/=
bitcoindev/CAAS2fgRFP%2BBJUZR7h01%3D7%3DqamD5qEW6OYJikTMR%3D5RkxTCEMZg%40ma=
il.gmail.com?utm_medium=3Demail&amp;utm_source=3Dfooter" target=3D"_blank">=
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CAAS2fgRFP%2BBJUZR7h01%3D7%3Dq=
amD5qEW6OYJikTMR%3D5RkxTCEMZg%40mail.gmail.com</a>.<br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">bitcoind=
ev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To view this discussion visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/=
bitcoindev/CAAS2fgSCORx7DHD6NCynh2rhnRbFgofLShZdqD9QwWO3fxyRWw%40mail.gmail=
.com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.com/d/ms=
gid/bitcoindev/CAAS2fgSCORx7DHD6NCynh2rhnRbFgofLShZdqD9QwWO3fxyRWw%40mail.g=
mail.com</a>.<br />

--000000000000d59cd6063f91843f--