[BIP Proposal] Mempool Validation and Relay Policies via User-Defined Scripts

The discourse suggests that the only efficient and straightforward method for regulating traffic through a node is the 'blocksonly' approach. Any alternative strategies are considered significantly less effective, especially for those aiming to reduce traffic, as filtering commonly fails to achieve this goal while also posing a risk of collateral damage. The conversation touches on the motivations behind seeking other methods, framing these attempts as fundamentally authoritarian because they aim to control the behavior of third parties based on a belief of superior understanding or moral standpoint. This perspective is critically viewed as an interference with the consensual conduct of individuals, drawing parallels between such tactics and historical or potential authoritarian actions, regardless of whether they manifest in centralized or distributed forms.

The text further argues against the notion of democratization within this context, positing that to influence third-party behavior effectively, a coordinated effort to enforce content filters would be necessary. This contradicts claims of democratization since it entails a form of censorship requiring widespread adoption of specific restrictions to be impactful. It challenges the efficacy and intent behind proposals for decentralized filtering, suggesting that without a mechanism for coordination, such proposals would not achieve their intended effect or would necessitate authoritarian measures for implementation.

Furthermore, the discussion critiques the concept of technological instruments as means of authoritarian censorship, highlighting how even in proposals like the one being developed in "knots," the underlying goal seems to be about controlling information access through external censorship rules. It questions why core developers do not adopt a 'blocks only' strategy by default if conserving resources and avoiding unconfirmed traffic are priorities, suggesting that core development aims to reflect what will likely be mined rather than prioritizing resource conservation.

In summary, the conversation critically examines the implications of attempting to regulate node traffic through means other than the 'blocksonly' approach, framing such efforts as inherently authoritarian and potentially ineffective. It underscores concerns regarding the democratization of censorship and the practicality of proposals aiming to implement decentralized filtering, challenging the rationale and outcomes of such approaches within the context of Bitcoin development.