Does that mean you won't support a soft fork like this?
To address spam, no.
To address Core 30 malware, maybe.
Please Login to reply.
How would one address “Core 30 malware” with a soft fork?
https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/CALeFGL0PDjtRt2rfbY4gTkoc+5oNQ0mn_obraE7PrtHuNYFpQw@mail.gmail.com/T/#mb71350c5dfb119efeb92c5ee738b6c8225bf15b6
This spam solution I can respect (not that it matters lol).
Auto expiration - great idea.
Going after actual problem.
Increasing cost after limit - great idea.
If Bitcoin Core 30 did not exist, would you call what you’re proposing to render invalid here “spam”?
