pull down to refresh
180 sats \ 2 replies \ @d01abcb3eb 3h \ parent \ on: BIP 444: Reduced Data Temporary Softfork bitcoin
Yeah, the potential double-spending issue is interesting. But so is the apparent clumsiness of the proposal - and the path that has lead here. Whatever game theoretic play the spam team is playing it's obviously working.
would you be willing to hazard a guess as to what the goal of a soft fork like this is?
reply
Not really. From my vantage point there seems to be nothing positive in it for the "Knots-side". I think, to hazard a guess one would need to have some understanding of the target audiences here - for which I have none... To me it simply does not make much sense. Perhaps needless to say, I'm impressed by neither the new relaying defaults nor core's ability to make it harder to spam the blockchain.
reply