yes an intentional spam attack is when one entity is respending funds as soon as it confirms..
there is no logical reason to respend so fast.
this kind of thing could be mitigated by having transactions have a 1-6 block maturity after confirm. instead of using 'economics' to cost people out of utility.
that way the code protection of spamming harms less innocent people while actually reducing the malicious parties.
but hey the devs decided to do what banks do best. charge people more rather then have proper safeguards for protection. (they are doing the same stupid economic mindset in their LN project too.. avoiding using real code protections and instead letting economic penalties dissuade malice)
Which is extremely sad...
I got the impress that btc is becoming more and more the exact same thing than normal currency...
People are even asking for btc banks for god sake ><
yep LN for instance..
when withdrawing out of LN (settling) even when the settlement tx is confirmed LN want to have a 3-5day maturity (CLTV) where funds are unspendable. that way it still gives the other party 3-5 days to take the funds back as a chargeback (CSV revoke).
other penanties exist while inside an LN contract, which all LN contracts need second party authorisation. LN is paypal2.0 once people start pricing up the internal 'hop' penalties/fee's and start using hubs to decrease the penalties/fee's.