Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
Sorry, missed this:
It means you only need to work with economic disincentives for those who are serious in transacting versus script kiddies.
One man making one-five-ten transactions with, say, a 0.08$ fee won't go "bust" by paying these low fees.
There you go again 
I agree with you that bad things are bad. Is your definition of spam "tx X is spam if X contains < 0.08$ tx fee?" That's just an example of a useful definition, what one might look like, because, sometimes, examples help.
What does ["However trying to understand the intent by code is unnecessary."] mean?
It means you only need to work with economic disincentives for those who are serious in transacting versus script kiddies.
One man making one-five-ten transactions with, say, a 0.08$ fee won't go "bust" by paying these low fees.
I agree with you that bad things are bad. Is your definition of spam "tx X is spam if X contains < 0.08$ tx fee?" That's just an example of a useful definition, what one might look like, because, sometimes, examples help.
The number is an example. You can only code it in satoshi/byte, so what is currently 0.08$ will be 0.25$ by the time we are back at the ATH of 1200+$. That will still be below PayPal / CCs and probably in line with "top of the microtransaction range". Of course, that's just my number, another one might say 1$, another one might say 0.1$ - who cares. Opinions are like a$$holes and everyone has one... right?
Again, I'm not objecting to any definition, not asking for it to be "objectively great," merely one to use as a starting point.
...
Edit: So let's go with the < 8c definition, for giggles.
What would you like to see happen? Change in the protocol, so nodes running it would shitcan all tx < 0.08$ tx fee?
What do you think is preventing Core from implementing 8c min tx fee?
1. Lazy?
2. Haven't thought of it?
3. ? ? ?
Is it in the miners' rational self-interest to include < 0.08$ transactions now?
1. If not, why?
1a. how would raising the blocksize limit change this?
1b. how would lowering the blocksize limit change this?
2. What incentivized miners to include zero-fee tx in the past?
2a. What changed?
Edit: So let's go with the < 8c definition, for giggles.
What would you like to see happen? Change in the protocol, so nodes running it would shitcan all tx < 0.08$ tx fee?
What do you think is preventing Core from implementing 8c min tx fee?
1. Lazy?
2. Haven't thought of it?
3. ? ? ?
Is it in the miners' rational self-interest to include < 0.08$ transactions now?
1. If not, why?
1a. how would raising the blocksize limit change this?
1b. how would lowering the blocksize limit change this?
2. What incentivized miners to include zero-fee tx in the past?
2a. What changed?
Quote
What counts is the intent of transacting.
Again, Bitcoin can't know the intent behind transactions, so intent should not enter into the discussion unless you propose to have each tx be approved/denied by an ethics committee.Intent could be, and is codified into h00man law, but that's why h00man law is not overseen cybernetically. It's very nuanced and involves h00man judges & h00man juries, and is very time-consuming. That's why my ATM doesn't deny me my $400 @ 2am & swallow my card, while its little speaker chides me, in old-lady voice, "I just know you're gonna buy dope with that money, you filthy degenerate. You always do, I know your type. Why would a decent human need cash at 2 am? You tell me, shitstick, and no more excuses -- I already called the cops."
Guessing intent is just too much for current AI, tho that ATM does have somewhat of a point, won't lie.