[Mempool spam] Should we as developers reject non-standard Taproot transactions from full nodes?

The email discusses the sensitive topic of block size in relation to Bitcoin. It acknowledges that block size has previously been used as an attack vector and is now a significant aspect of the project's mythology. The discussion around block size should involve a dispassionate analysis of the technical trade-offs and how they impact the properties of the network.

One potential attack on Bitcoin involves raising the lowest fee, making it more difficult for users to participate. While this may benefit miners, there would be a vocal minority arguing that it disrupts the network's ordinary function. Increasing the block size can make this type of disruptive attack more expensive. However, it's important to note that some of the so-called "spam" transactions may be seen as legitimate by certain individuals.

Looking towards the future, the author believes that miners and users will approach the fee auction in new ways, potentially utilizing AI algorithms. Given that trillions are transmitted through the Bitcoin network with only a fraction being captured, as the block subsidy decreases over the next two decades, there may be a situation where higher-value transactions pay more for priority transfers. The introduction of AI could change the game theory, and its impact will become evident in the next two epochs.

Considering this perspective, increasing the block size could be possible with advancements in hardware while maintaining the decentralized properties valued in the network. To facilitate this, the author suggests rolling out technologies like stratumv2 and utreexo first.