The Spam problem of Bitcoin and Unpermissioned Broadcast Networks in general

The discussion raises critical concerns regarding the efficiency of peer-to-peer (P2P) value transfers in the face of spam, specifically within the context of Bitcoin and similar unpermissioned networks like nostr. It is suggested that the traditional belief in mitigating spam through increased costs may not be as effective as previously thought. This skepticism stems from an understanding that spammers, motivated by the prospect of reaching millions or billions, derive significantly more value from their activities compared to individuals engaging in P2P transactions. Therefore, the cost-benefit analysis heavily favors spammers over regular users.

Furthermore, the email highlights a potential shift away from Bitcoin by users primarily interested in P2P value transfers due to the spam issue. The inherent design of Bitcoin's layer-1, which relies on broadcast principles for transaction propagation, is identified as a limiting factor that cannot easily adapt to alternative, more efficient methods that might deter spam without imposing prohibitive costs on legitimate users. The comparison with nostr underscores a broader challenge faced by decentralized networks in balancing openness with resistance to spam.

In addressing spam, the internet at large has opted for identifying users and penalizing misbehavior rather than making actions more costly. This approach, however, clashes with the foundational principles of Bitcoin, which prioritize anonymity and resistance to censorship. Moreover, the reliance on identification has paved the way for an expansion of surveillance by tech giants, leading to significant privacy concerns. Thus, the dilemma between combating spam and upholding Bitcoin’s ethos presents a complex challenge, suggesting that alternative solutions must be sought to preserve both the network’s utility and its core values.