Nyoro~n on Nostr: mempool policy is referring to datacarrier or something else? what surprised me was ...
mempool policy is referring to datacarrier or something else?
what surprised me was how Core leaned on nonsensical "disputes" to justify their inaction (well over a year now).
either fix datacarrier or remove it. The discussion of endless cat and mouse game possibilities for data storage, or the distraction of how mempool policy could induce out of band tx behavior, all that nonsense, is all irrelevant and should happen elsewhere
id imagine most users are fine with Core's mempool policy as it stands provided the available configurations actually works (it doesnt). i dont think mempool policy is a distraction at all because it is hard to determine the effectiveness of available scaling solutions if basic things like this are broken.
running through another softfork for the sake to add any new set of op_codes (which are available to use on Liquid already ) is irresponsible
what surprised me was how Core leaned on nonsensical "disputes" to justify their inaction (well over a year now).
either fix datacarrier or remove it. The discussion of endless cat and mouse game possibilities for data storage, or the distraction of how mempool policy could induce out of band tx behavior, all that nonsense, is all irrelevant and should happen elsewhere
id imagine most users are fine with Core's mempool policy as it stands provided the available configurations actually works (it doesnt). i dont think mempool policy is a distraction at all because it is hard to determine the effectiveness of available scaling solutions if basic things like this are broken.
running through another softfork for the sake to add any new set of op_codes (which are available to use on Liquid already ) is irresponsible