Ah, interesting. Thank you for this information. I don't like it. I wonder if there is some market mechanism for getting it to be where transaction processors actually process the transactions. Higher fees? More transactions? Lower cost bandwidth?
Post by twetch#8015
- Convince HathorMM that validating TXs for fees is rational
- Feed competing miners enough revenue to outhash HathorMM
- Disallow 0-value UTXOs (not "market" driven but suggested by @205 )
@40 has compelling reasons why #3 is a bad idea. I'm not sure.
What the chain says
- Block
- 660 480
- Time
- 2020-11-09T02:11:52Z
- Signer
- 12HPXH6C6PsrionmpMwLBeXzLcufVNUW7G
- App
- twetch
- Type
- post
- Content type
- text/plain
- Name in tx
- twetch#8015
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
12HPXH6C6PsrionmpMwLBeXzLcufVNUW7G VerifiedReplies (6)
Interesting! Thank you. That gives me a lot to consider.
For the record...I'm not against disallowing 0-valued UTXO's to be spent. I'll accept. I'm all for experimenting and letting the free market decide.
I'm pointing out that 0-valued UTXO's start a slippery slope and reducing the demand for Satoshis.
Important clarification, thank you!
Ethereum has 0 ETH txs, infinite inflation, zero scaling solutions and a market cap 17x higher than Bitcoin. That says: "Let's focus on utility and ease of use!" to me, not: "Let's argue the merits of imposing new artificial constraints on Bitcoin miners!"
Interesting! Thank you for sharing.
Never seen a free TX on Ethereum, and the inflation rate still approaches 0% over time.