Quote from: LoyceV on Today at 07:39:29 AM

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on June 07, 2024, 12:57:35 PM

Quote from: LoyceV on June 07, 2024, 12:51:13 PM

What to make of this? Why would anyone do this?

Here's why:

Quote from: Synchronice on April 22, 2024, 06:45:07 PM

You are probably right, dumb people don't have infinite money but you completely ignore that there is an infinity of dumb people and they are constantly expanding like the universe does. So, technically we have an infinite money.

With ordinals or runes, I can imagine someone's selling that crap to countless dumb people. But in this case, I don't see how anyone can sell it to gullible victims. It looks like one dumb person who's wasting millions of dollars, and usually people who are that dumb don't have that kind of money (anymore).

Quote from: stompix on June 07, 2024, 01:23:24 PM

We need a blockexplorer that shows how much each address has spent on fees!

That's not really possible: most addresses have multiple inputs.

Quote from: Cricktor on June 07, 2024, 01:27:33 PM

I don't understand current transactions flooding mempool like 2eee1dacec1f807c681166518c32ce8fbe9c1d109423ed9c7c92a71fa1a6b52b, which spend around 150 2-of-3-multisig inputs worth 0.7x-ish BTC and pay a Tx fee of 11,111,874sat worth $7,923. That's in my opinion more than bonkers...

Even better if they keep creating small inputs to consolidate. See this address: none of it makes any sense.

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on June 07, 2024, 08:38:13 PM

It might be a controversial take, but I'd rather have a delayed yet proper second layer solution, even if it's going to dissatisfy those transacting on-chain for a long time, than have every user temporarily satisfied but tricked into believing that rising the on-chain capacity arbitrarily is the way to go over the long term.

I "joined Bitcoin" in 2015. In 2017, blocks were full for the first time, which lead to very high transaction fees. That was 6.5 years ago. I'd love to see an actively used second layer solution, but it's taking too long.

Quote

The future of money requires proper DoS protection and a self-sustainability assurance mechanism, and that's the block size limit. The fact that an on-chain transaction currently costs $30 is evidence that it works.

The spam protection may work, but if it also restricts using Bitcoin as a payment system, it's damaging adoption. What's the point of a blockchain when it stores 80% spam?

Quote from: philipma1957 on June 07, 2024, 08:41:48 PM

so 60 blocks average fee for them around 3.5 coins

Why would anyone burn 15 million dollars on this?

Well remember if they have a direct deal with foundry (biggest pool) they could get a fee kickback.

I have been studying the high fee attacks since 2017. I have multiple examples that can be done that could make money.

Most of them you need to involve 40% of the hashrate not 51% and the pools need to share with at the person jacking the fees.