[BIP Proposal] Reduced Data Temporary Softfork

The email from Chris brings to light the complexities and ambiguities surrounding the definition of "spam" within the context of Bitcoin transactions. The author points out that there is no clear, universally accepted set of criteria for what constitutes spam, highlighting various descriptions such as "large non-monetary data embedded in transactions." However, the terms "large" and "non-monetary" are not precisely defined, leading to confusion about what exactly qualifies as spam. Furthermore, the use of vague terms like “undesirable extra load” or “not following best practices” adds to the ambiguity, as there is no consensus on what these terms entail.

Chris expresses a desire for a specific set of criteria that could be used to objectively define a transaction as spam, suggesting that without such criteria, it is challenging to enforce any rules consistently. This lack of clarity, according to Chris, makes it difficult to specify or enforce rules against spam, resulting in ongoing modifications to address new forms of spam under changing circumstances.

Moreover, the email reflects on the potential consequences of attempting to codify a definition of spam without a rigorous framework. Chris warns that such attempts could lead to both social and technical fragmentation within the Bitcoin community. He foresees continual revisions being made due to external pressures and even suggests the possibility of a fork if these changes are implemented. This perspective underscores the need for careful consideration and a balanced approach when defining and addressing spam in the context of Bitcoin development.