Quote from: d5000 on May 06, 2017, 08:24:41 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on May 05, 2017, 08:53:53 PM

You know about flextrans right?

Wouldn't Flextrans have the exact same problem? I haven't studied Flextrans in detail, but from what I remember it would enable a new "version" of transactions without malleability. But wouldn't legacy transactions ("v1", as they call it here) continue to be allowed in this proposal, too? In this case it could lead to the exact same situation where a malicious miner or pool could try to spam the network with legacy transactions to "take out" some competitors.

yep flex trans is a new tx type just like segwit.. requiring people to choose to use them, but doesnt solve the issues with the old native(legacy) transactions

the solution is to limit the sigops. and develop a new priority fee formulae actually works that charges more for people that bloat and want to spend too often.

things like hope and faith that pools will do the right thing are not enough, i actually laugh that the blockstream(core) devs actually removed code mechanisms and then went for banker economics 'just pay more'

i laughed more when reading their half gesture hopes and utopian promoted half baked promises meant more to them then actual clean code