all for sub-sat fees if thats the market clearing price, but further evidence of capture
There are no coincidences.
nostr:nevent1qqs20jpck06w63uf7l9d2y9c37ze52nsnh32fz46290vs3w793hgc9s45q7ps
Discussion
The end goal is to reduce the risk of blocks getting orphaned, which is the main reason bad actors like MARA shut down services like that. Spam-pools face the same risk if Knots adoption grows. The default 1-sat/vB filter in Core plays a role similar to what would happen if a restrictive datacarriersize filter were enforced by default. In both cases, miners like MARA would likely abandon spam-related services, since the chance of losing an entire block reward far outweighs a few thousand dollars in extra fees from spam transactions. I think it’s becoming obvious for which team Core devs is playing.
Agreed.
In this case i dont think the relay policy change is an attack on the chain quite like allowing the taproot spam is but it is the exact same mechanism and se of problems.
I do find it curious that Core intervened now only when it appears that most of the mining hash power is mining sub-1 sat/vbytes whereas MARA alone having Slipstream was used as a checkmate for anti-spam argument that it would increase node resource needs and lead to infinite orphaned blocks. The first makes sense - standard transactions where market clearing price dropped in deflated BTC terms where most blocks that could have them did have them. Whereas the second seemed at the VERY least too early to pick a side
To clarify, without being too ideological: if a block contains transactions that are missing from the mempools of many relays, then the block might propagate more slowly. This increases the risk of the block being orphaned, and so miners have an incentive to include only transactions which are in the mempool (depending on the fees, of course)
Is that right?
Correct