š
Original date posted:2014-02-25
š Original message:On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 06:25:18PM +0530, Mike Hearn wrote:
> Given that the fee drop puts fees in "real" (i.e. dollar) terms back to
> where they were some months ago, it seems odd to claim this is creating
> vulnerabilities that didn't exist in the previous version. The cost of an
> attack would be the same as before.
No it's not. The cost is only incurred in the transactions actually get
mined, and unlike before the drop appears to be well under the
break-even orphan cost of transactions; we've got no reason to think the
clearance rate of these low-fee transactions will be significant.
But anyway, mostly I'm writing this to register my strong opposition
knowing full well that I don't expect it to change your minds.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000eb671d932a8d310e8ab963c53b2be8a27bd5de2a712c2f59
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 685 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140225/952b63e3/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2ā¦a2np2
2023-06-07 15:14:02
in reply to nevent1qā¦6m63
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Published at
2023-06-07 15:14:02Event JSON
{
"id": "2807e9b7ccea87263586c90a8f3f28220a2463b56bc7d1091d092542bff15b4f",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686150842,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"55061f10a25a72677106f0a5479938ff68fdbd1326cc7676e77a6d3d3c9b97b3",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"9ea4d2460842048d238af313c55ced721ea17be348a5222ec4021147391531ea",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2014-02-25\nš Original message:On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 06:25:18PM +0530, Mike Hearn wrote:\n\u003e Given that the fee drop puts fees in \"real\" (i.e. dollar) terms back to\n\u003e where they were some months ago, it seems odd to claim this is creating\n\u003e vulnerabilities that didn't exist in the previous version. The cost of an\n\u003e attack would be the same as before.\n\nNo it's not. The cost is only incurred in the transactions actually get\nmined, and unlike before the drop appears to be well under the\nbreak-even orphan cost of transactions; we've got no reason to think the\nclearance rate of these low-fee transactions will be significant.\n\n\nBut anyway, mostly I'm writing this to register my strong opposition\nknowing full well that I don't expect it to change your minds.\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n0000000000000000eb671d932a8d310e8ab963c53b2be8a27bd5de2a712c2f59\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 685 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140225/952b63e3/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "b957e24c08747a9bbe473522150bf47be0bca49765627fe31d0078ec84f758cd41c35d31e85475903617aa0046e6c460ab4efdefe2c9858ff7f71e1b778b886c"
}