"Sold a suit to buy the dip".

Indeed, peak clown marketing. Let's call that bullshit out. The y axis is duration so degradation instead of improvement of performance.

May I ask you to show rates of changes of the two in a single chart (and a single scale), please?

Why drama? Can't Rust enjoyers simply fork off their own branch as a separate project?

The fear is normal. Get used to it. Tools are little intuitive and mistakes are commonplace. Don't rush, test, backup and share your experience to build knowledge and better tools.

That's the reason Satoshi decided to stay anonymous - he feared parting his BTCs in divorce legal proceedings, did he?

Bitcoiners, your transactions with lower fee-rates are already relayed by mempool.guide.

Fee-rates as low as 0.001 sat/vbyte!

I haven't claimed that miners were considering transactions paying less than minTxRelayFeerate (although they might have).

I think that the example proved that a "transaction paying less than minRelayTxFeerate" may be confirmed. I don't see what else may need to be proved.

Let's not exaggerate. This setting reconfiguration doesn't cause endless amounts of data to be forwarded.

What makes you considering a transaction with fee at 1 sat/vbyte as okay while the same transaction with smaller fee, e.g. at 0.1 sat/vbyte as not okay ("useless data")?

That's ok. In the end there is one transaction in mempools. A transaction is replaced with another one of the same size. What do you think justifies charging additional fee in such a case?

List of them: https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transactions?s=time(desc)&q=fee(0..98),is_coinbase(false)#f=hash,block_id,input_count,output_count,time,output_total,output_total_usd,fee_usd,fee,is_coinbase Example of such a transaction: https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/49a0efc983b19038cb5aa80008d7b9f7690dfb80de84a55f7aabce9d3137f2fa

The assumption that a transaction would have never got confirmed is incorrect.

That's not true. It means that the sender paid for the extra bytes at the same fee-rate.

It wouldn't cause "it free to send any amount of data to all bitcoin nodes". Let's not exaggerate.

Miners are of tertiary importance here (if any). The setting is applied by node runners and affects nodes in the first place.

As a side note, consider also setting incrementalrelayfee=0 instead of the default 3000 in order to relay replacement transactions which fee-rates don't change.

Transaction fee is quoted in natural numbers, e.g. 97 sats for a transaction. A fee-rate sat/vbyte is derivative and doesn't exist on the chain. There isn't any rounding problem.