What's Tone on about Bitcoin holders suing "altcoin creators" in case they (BTC'ers) lose their life savings?
Was someone making sure he has access to all his meds?
Or is he secretly a Craig Wright & Calvin Ayre fan?
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? 😂
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.
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...
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...