Interesting, that you cannot understand, how it works. If you put more filters, or other kind of blockers, then guess what: more transactions will be sent outside of the P2P world, straight to the biggest miners. Which will centralize mining, because in the extreme cases, you will have each miner, working on a different 4 MB block. I guess if more and more people will be pushing for more and more filters, then we will no longer have a concept of a "non-standard transaction" anymore. And then, lifting more standardness limits will be needed, just to encourage users to push transactions into the P2P network again, instead of doing it through centralized places. It is a similar case, as it was with transaction fees: they were set to 1 sat/vB for a long time. And then, when lower transaction fees were in use, some nodes started to ignore any fee limits at all, just to improve the block propagation, and started accepting even free transactions, just because it was simpler, than guessing the correct limit. And then, it was changed to 0.1 sat/vB, to put at least some DoS protections back, and not leave the whole system wide open. Also, in normal circumstances, many people wouldn't even think about making spammy transactions. But if you start putting some filters, or other blockers, then you create a challenge to be solved. And then, expect people to solve it. If you say "my filter solves that", then expect people to find counterexamples. I also wonder, what would you do, when spammers would use 100% transaction fees? Because if someone cares only about pushing some data, then concepts like "change address" or "getting any coins left" simply doesn't exist. And in that cases, that kind of spam will always win with regular transactions, just because regular users don't fully turn all of their coins into fees. But data pushers may do, because they care only about that data being published.
Interesting, that you cannot understand, how it works. If you put more filters, or other kind of blockers, then guess what: more transactions will be sent outside of the P2P world, straight to the biggest miners. Which will centralize mining, because in the extreme cases, you will have each miner, working on a different 4 MB block. I guess if more and more people will be pushing for more and more filters, then we will no longer have a concept of a "non-standard transaction" anymore. And then, lifting more standardness limits will be needed, just to encourage users to push transactions into the P2P network again, instead of doing it through centralized places. It is a similar case, as it was with transaction fees: they were set to 1 sat/vB for a long time. And then, when lower transaction fees were in use, some nodes started to ignore any fee limits at all, just to improve the block propagation, and started accepting even free transactions, just because it was simpler, than guessing the correct limit. And then, it was changed to 0.1 sat/vB, to put at least some DoS protections back, and not leave the whole system wide open. Also, in normal circumstances, many people wouldn't even think about making spammy transactions. But if you start putting some filters, or other blockers, then you create a challenge to be solved. And then, expect people to solve it. If you say "my filter solves that", then expect people to find counterexamples. I also wonder, what would you do, when spammers would use 100% transaction fees? Because if someone cares only about pushing some data, then concepts like "change address" or "getting any coins left" simply doesn't exist. And in that cases, that kind of spam will always win with regular transactions, just because regular users don't fully turn all of their coins into fees. But data pushers may do, because they care only about that data being published.

Interesting, that you cannot understand, how it works. If you put more filters, or other kind of blockers, then guess what: more transactions will be sent outside of the P2P world, straight to the biggest miners. Which will centralize mining, because in the extreme cases, you will have each miner, working on a different 4 MB block. I guess if more and more people will be pushing for more and more filters, then we will no longer have a concept of a "non-standard transaction" anymore. And then, lifting more standardness limits will be needed, just to encourage users to push transactions into the P2P network again, instead of doing it through centralized places. It is a similar case, as it was with transaction fees: they were set to 1 sat/vB for a long time. And then, when lower transaction fees were in use, some nodes started to ignore any fee limits at all, just to improve the block propagation, and started accepting even free transactions, just because it was simpler, than guessing the correct limit. And then, it was changed to 0.1 sat/vB, to put at least some DoS protections back, and not leave the whole system wide open. Also, in normal circumstances, many people wouldn't even think about making spammy transactions. But if you start putting some filters, or other blockers, then you create a challenge to be solved. And then, expect people to solve it. If you say "my filter solves that", then expect people to find counterexamples. I also wonder, what would you do, when spammers would use 100% transaction fees? Because if someone cares only about pushing some data, then concepts like "change address" or "getting any coins left" simply doesn't exist. And in that cases, that kind of spam will always win with regular transactions, just because regular users don't fully turn all of their coins into fees. But data pushers may do, because they care only about that data being published.

Interesting, that you cannot understand, how it works. If you put more filters, or other kind of blockers, then guess what: more transactions will be sent outside of the P2P world, straight to the biggest miners. Which will centralize mining, because in the extreme cases, you will have each miner, working on a different 4 MB block. I guess if more and more people will be pushing for more and more filters, then we will no longer have a concept of a "non-standard transaction" anymore. And then, lifting more standardness limits will be needed, just to encourage users to push transactions into the P2P network again, instead of doing it through centralized places. It is a similar case, as it was with transaction fees: they were set to 1 sat/vB for a long time. And then, when lower transaction fees were in use, some nodes started to ignore any fee limits at all, just to improve the block propagation, and started accepting even free transactions, just because it was simpler, than guessing the correct limit. And then, it was changed to 0.1 sat/vB, to put at least some DoS protections back, and not leave the whole system wide open. Also, in normal circumstances, many people wouldn't even think about making spammy transactions. But if you start putting some filters, or other blockers, then you create a challenge to be solved. And then, expect people to solve it. If you say "my filter solves that", then expect people to find counterexamples. I also wonder, what would you do, when spammers would use 100% transaction fees? Because if someone cares only about pushing some data, then concepts like "change address" or "getting any coins left" simply doesn't exist. And in that cases, that kind of spam will always win with regular transactions, just because regular users don't fully turn all of their coins into fees. But data pushers may do, because they care only about that data being published.