Central banks: Here, use this permissioned digital fiat, turning it permissionless is on the roadmap...
Facebook: Yeah, trust them, I mean, trust us!
#dailymemo
I vote Ryan for Tax Czar.
TFW status.reddit.com is unreachable ...
https://t.co/rSyXtNhzRU .@jordanbpeterson the 13th rule for life: "Treat your wealth as you treat your time, and treat your time as wealth. Choose the right money, for money is your time condensed"
Thank you for supporting
#Memo and Bitcoin Cash
(otherwise I would not be seeing your post)
But can you sign to prove you're the real Francis Pouliot? 😂
Unless they relay them (and I hear BCHD still does) then, it's effectively a no-starter for below-minfee txs from the user side...
You're right, ABC and BU nodes do not route anything under 1 sat/byte by default. BU made the change last release, but you can still configure a BU node to do it if you want.
That seems like a good solution. The difficult part is keeping miners in sync about which rules get delayed.
Thanks for commenting on my actual question btw.
That seems like a good solution. The difficult part is keeping miners in sync about which rules get delayed.
Yes, the most straightforward approach to solving that would be to code it up across the full node clients so that they don't have to apply it manually.
Remember when the censor theymos collected 6000 BTC to improve the bitcointalk.org forum and didn't deliver anything, just channelled out the funds through a fake web development team?
Using today's exchange rate, it's $50M+...
But then this amount is not even comparable to the damage that he caused by spreading lies and censoring people.
Remember when the censor theymos collected 6000 BTC to improve the bitcointalk.org forum and didn't deliver anything, just channelled out the funds through a fake web development team?
Are main clients (ABC, BU) allowing rate-limited propagation of 0-fee with adequate priority?
I heard they don't anymore, because of the problems they caused to 0-conf...
Unless they relay them (and I hear BCHD still does) then, it's effectively a no-starter for below-minfee txs from the user side...
Are main clients (ABC, BU) allowing rate-limited propagation of 0-fee with adequate priority?
I heard they don't anymore, because of the problems they caused to 0-conf...
Maybe my brain is still switched of RN, but it seems to me that way we could solve the "interference" of minfee-breaking txs with 0-conf.
I could be totally wrong...
... but it would be nice to bring back a small percentage of free transactions as Satoshi wrote (not urgent, but in time), without breaking the nice 0-conf that we (BCH) can provide.
Q: If enforcing the 1sat/byte minfee is generally now to protect against open doublespends, why don't miners just make a rule to delay 0-fee txs by at least N blocks (N >= 1) as a rule, either informal or coded up?
Maybe my brain is still switched of RN, but it seems to me that way we could solve the "interference" of minfee-breaking txs with 0-conf.
I could be totally wrong...
Q: If enforcing the 1sat/byte minfee is generally now to protect against open doublespends, why don't miners just make a rule to delay 0-fee txs by at least N blocks (N >= 1) as a rule, either informal or coded up?
Web trackers are the ticks of the digital savanna.
#dailymemo
I heard there was a soft-fork
Is there a PR for renaming opcode ANYONECANSPEND with NOTANYONECANSTEAL ?
/s
#dailymemo
Don't forget to sign up to Local BCH!
HTTPS://local.bitcoin.com/r/maple - hook me up with some juicy 👌20% referral🚀 then share your own!
#dailymemo
