Quote from: franky1 on May 04, 2017, 11:22:46 PM

Quote from: Lauda on May 04, 2017, 10:46:25 PM

You can't harm the network with sigops at 1 MB.

you can. think of the sigops as another "limit" of spam that once filled nothing else can get in

Nonsense. That is spam, and not what we were talking about. You keep creating straw man arguments.

Quote from: franky1 on May 04, 2017, 11:22:46 PM

so i can fill a blocks sigops limit easily with 7tx of (c)

Irrelevant, already known and denied by nobody. You're starting to become boring.

Quote from: franky1 on May 04, 2017, 11:22:46 PM

and although its only 7tx, and only 0.68mb of data.. no other transactions can get into the base block.. not even segwit tx's

Which you can avoid by prioritizing Segwit transactions.

Quote from: d5000 on May 04, 2017, 11:59:41 PM

Is the following mechanism correct: Legacy spam transactions would been recognized and avoided because they would "steal" them computing power for no benefit?

"Steal the computing power" is a pretty weird way to label this. I'd rather say that legacy transaction spam attacks would be recognized, and pools/miners could start prioritizing the other set of transactions.

Quote from: d5000 on May 04, 2017, 11:59:41 PM

I have no problem with that concept - only that in this case we should do that with a single hard fork (like in BIP 103) to avoid having to fork every year.

Of course. A single Bitcoin hard fork is very hard, let alone several of them.