melvincarvalho on Nostr: Likely multiple souces, some originates from BSV, and other places that would like to ...
Likely multiple souces, some originates from BSV, and other places that would like to see btc disrupted, for their own gain. So technically it makes sense.
If you look at the nash equilibrium, there is a neat defense to this, by conceptually splitting the mempool into 3 parts.
The first third is high value tx, who can afford more fees (as a % still low) for priority. Using the nash equilibrium miners and users will be in a contest to drive fees to a sustainable equilbrium. (You pay a bit more for priority).
The final third is the long tail, the poor, developers, L1/L2 transitions, regular users who are price and fee sensitive.
The middle third is the spammers, gamblers, potential attackers.
By stretching out the middle third you can make it much more expensive for potential attackers that want to disrupt bitcoin. The chain remains secure, and sufficiently decentralized, and everyone gets what they want, without significant disruption.
If you look at the nash equilibrium, there is a neat defense to this, by conceptually splitting the mempool into 3 parts.
The first third is high value tx, who can afford more fees (as a % still low) for priority. Using the nash equilibrium miners and users will be in a contest to drive fees to a sustainable equilbrium. (You pay a bit more for priority).
The final third is the long tail, the poor, developers, L1/L2 transitions, regular users who are price and fee sensitive.
The middle third is the spammers, gamblers, potential attackers.
By stretching out the middle third you can make it much more expensive for potential attackers that want to disrupt bitcoin. The chain remains secure, and sufficiently decentralized, and everyone gets what they want, without significant disruption.