i already posted that article here.
I know I had seen someone post it because that is why I opened that page lol, but I couldn't remember where (not senile just in rush with too much multitasking). Apologies for not quoting your post. I normally try to do that (even with my antagonists).
hey TPTB, you never commented on my revised attack:
Let's try this one: non economic actor decides to spam persistently at little cost to them (minimum fees or even 0 fees) as blocks get close to being filled by real activity, say starting like where we are right now, at the 50-60% level. Fees for regular users skyrocket making use untenable.
I think the fees for other users will only rise to just higher than the fees in the spam in order to displace the spam from the priority queue (assuming miners order their mempool by transaction fee then first seen, with first seen taking precedence over transaction fee only when there is a double-spend).
I was pondering if this could be employed against zero-confirmation transactions, but it seems not to be the case.