Ok, I need to highlight one important thing well proven by this discussion
(like it or not)...
Not the spam itself is the real reason of feeling: "something must be done"
The reason is: $30 fee per transaction (I hope you all agree)
Let me paraphrase some quotes used in this discussion,
Hi Bitcoin Developers,
There is an open issue in bitcoin core repository which was created last week:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27586
I think this should have been reported privately as vulnerability instead of
creating a GitHub issue even if it worked only in debug mode. Some
> They could have just as easily used OP_RETURN
outputs or any number of other data encoding techniques.
But doesn't OP_RETURN render the UTXO unspendable, thereby making it impossible
to "trade" the minted BTC-20 tokens?
Moth
Sent from Proton Mail for iOS
On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 7:55 PM,
> im unclear as to the purposepaying an onchain transaction fee greater than
> the amount receiving could possibly serve.
If you expect fees to continue to rise and be sustained at abnormally high
levels for a long period of time you might seek to close your Lightning
channel(s) and move
I would like to point out that I'm not an advocate for doing anything at
this point aside from working on l2
just to make it inconvenient for people
I just think the discussion of outputs and fees is interesting and related
to the game theory portion of Bitcoin
On Tue, May 9, 2023, 8:23 AM
po 8. 5. 2023 v 13:55 odesílatel Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> napsal:
> Hi guys,
>
> I think everyone on this list knows what has happened to the Bitcoin
> mempool during the past 96 hours. Due to side projects such as BRC-20
> having such a high volume,
>In traditional finance, front-running is defined as "entering into an
equity trade, options or future contracts with advance knowledge of a block
transaction that will influence the price of the underlying security to
capitlize on the trade" [0]. In Bitcoin/Civkit parlance, a front-running
could
And prevent perfectly reasonable transfers of value
Such a transfer can only be reasonable when off-chain value is attached
to the coins. A rule like this is the embodiment of the philosophy that
the Bitcoin network is for onchain-economic transactions.
Parties could get around the rule
>
>
> > no data at all
exactly, which is why a relationship between "cpfp-inclusive outputs" and
"fees" makes sense. it's clear that's a good definition of dust, and not
too hard to get a working pr up for the network-layer. i get that your
node will still route. i get that it would break
Le 08/05/2023 à 23:43, Christopher Allen via bitcoin-dev a écrit :
> There was a recent thread discussing raising the limit on
> OP_RETURN https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27043
Indeed we already discussed all of this, and the conclusion was: there
are no reasons to impose limits,
10 matches
Mail list logo
