Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 03:45:17 PM

Quote from: garlonicon on Today at 06:49:43 AM

3. It forces high fees all the time, because even if blocks will be full, then your self-transfer will always fill the remaining space, and make some fee market.

Doesn't that mean that the attacker has to frequently pay high fees to sustain this attack? Moreover, why does "wasting time on dummy transactions" centralizes the network, and why do we call it "wasted time" since they are regular transactions, just like any other honest nodes would either way verify.

Quote from: ecdsa123 on Today at 12:02:34 PM

1. Primarily, this attack affects mining pools and other full nodes. It is important to understand that the bigger the block with a large number of self-transfers, the more time and resources are required for other nodes to verify such a block. This gives the attacker a time advantage in the block verification process, leading to a slowdown and decreased efficiency for competing mining pools.

That is probably answering my second question. May I suppose that this particular attack influences the network by orders of magnitude more when the block size limit is dynamical?

(Also, am I talking to a chat bot?)

No @BlcackHatCoiner , i'm using transalator from my born language:).

According your question : in 90% yes, but it is not necesary that it must be dynamical.