Quote from: sturle on July 10, 2015, 09:26:51 AM

WTF? No, there has been no forks relating to any of the antispam features. Most of the antispam features are built into Bitcoin Core, which reject most possible valid transactions by default. Have a look at AcceptToMemoryPool in src/main.cpp, and associated checks. With no provisions against denial of service attacks, I can't see how bitcoin will survive in the long run, and of course bitcoin has to adapt to new attack vectors. The rules do not change the validity of the transactions, only your willingness to relay and mine the spam.

Quote from: Lucko on July 10, 2015, 06:14:37 AM

I'm using extreme to get a point across. Everyone agreed Sybil Attack were attacks not choices. So unless you think that there was noting wrong with doing that you should use same critters with antispam rules that disrupted wallets...

EDIT: Just adding a link http://www.coindesk.com/chainalysis-ceo-denies-launching-sybil-attack-on-bitcoin-network/

EDIT: Badly done Antispam is even more dengues... If your Antispam filter would reject all mails that had more then 10 recipients you would not be happy about it... If sender would not get a message that that happen it would be even a bigger problem in case it is a legit impotent mail... So just say if it has more then 200 outputs it is spam is really stupid way to do that...