Automatically yes but never hard-code such a rule to ban a certain implementation because of its "changeable preference".

As a full node or a light client, we connect to full nodes for many different reasons not just to push transactions. Which means having the most options to connect to is better.

We also have little ways of knowing why a node rejected a transaction we just sent it. It may be a bad signature, it may be an overloaded mempool that has dynamically increased the fee rate or it could be a standard rule aka preference that the user changed. For example a bitcoin core node can reject a transaction containing an OP_RETURN output that is 10 bytes while a bitcoin Knots node can accept an OP_RETURN output that is 500 bytes just because the user can easily change those limits. They are not hard-coded.

It's up to the developer of your client to have already handled all these cases automatically and in a general way not a hard-coded case-by-case way through their user-agent just because they had a fight with that other developer on Twitter 

That argument is not in the same category though. That doesn't even make sense.

Lets look at the hashrate chart, to add some evidence to my arguments before.

The following is the 30-day average hashrate over the past 3 years and the position where I placed the curser at is the time when we reached ATH of about $70k in 2021 and also it is the start of the bear market where price continues falling down to about $15k for about a year.
It is clear that the hashrate has been constantly rising despite the massive drop in price. Even before the reversal starts and we go back above $20k, hashrate has almost doubled!



You can not argue about miners revenue when the price has gotten dumped so much while hashrate has more than tripled in the same period!
If miners were so desperate for revenue, hashrate would have at best stayed the same and at worse dropped. But instead it massively rose.

That's true but we should discuss that and the options to increase miners revenue when the issue arises in 10-30 years from now. If by then we decided that turning Bitcoin to cloud storage and to increase the fees by a spam attack is the way to go, then so be it. It would be trivial to loosen the policy rules to allow that.

Today and in the near future we don't need that though. And that's why I disagree with bringing up miners revenue at this stage. Price has been rising nicely and even during the drops over the past year or two we still saw hashrate go up which shows miners are not concerned about losing revenue.

That's correct but lets first consider how this attack works and why.
Unlike previous spam attacks when a centralized entity has to spend money out of pocket create large number of transactions paying increasing amount of fee to clog the network, this time it is regular users who are brainwashed into thinking what they are buying is an NFT token so they spam the chain themselves.

If these abusive transactions become non-standard (nodes stop relaying them) it could potentially eliminate a large number of attackers (aka the regular brainwashed newbies I mentioned above) because for starters they don't even know how to use bitcoin. Additionally any kind of workaround with extra steps where they have to contact a miner covertly and have them mine their transaction is too complicated for them. Not to mention that it would be possible that the pool demands extra payments (fiat payment paid separately to the pool owner).
This is my speculation but I'd say it has a good chance of being correct.

You won't need to buy anything, all it takes is to create one of these scams yourself. You inject one of those arbitrary messages onto the chain then sell it for a million dollars to yourself on an exchange without KYC. That way you easily "clean" a million bucks!

There has definitely been something fishy going on with this attack from the start but I don't think their purpose is to create an altcoin and introduce it as "better bitcoin". So many others have tried with their "flippening" nonsense and have failed.

Similar to 2017, Bitcoin is under attack. This time the codename of this attack is Ordinals and the problem with this type of attack is that it creates an incentive for regular newbies to participate in this attack.
Fees won't go down as long as this attack continues and this attack will continue until bitcoin core developers fix the exploit Ordinals scammers are abusing to perform their attack and unfortunately the dev team doesn't seem to be interested in fixing this exploit! so we need to find another way...

Correct me if I'm wrong but this sounds like a problem that you have with Python language not with Electrum and I don't see how translating the whole thing to another language like C would solve anything. You should try to improve your Python skills to be able to apply the changes or additions that you want to Electrum.

Sometimes these things is because of broken implementations that suggest much higher fees and in some cases there are malicious fee estimation websites that intentionally suggest a ridiculously high fee rate.
There are also cases where the user wants to get their transaction confirmed with 100% certainty so they go overboard with the fee rate and pay a very high one so that if there were a spike between the time they broadcast and their tx is confirmed, they are still paying a high rate.
There is also this new case with the spam attack where newbies are participating in the Ordinals Attack and they don't mind paying a ton of fees because they are hoping to earn a profit on the garbage they dump on each other.

If you remember the situation before the Ordinals Attack began, you can see that the 4 MB weight was enough to handle the real demand. But after the spam attack began, the fees started going up and stayed up.
In other words the problem isn't the block space.

That move is more like the continuation of their fight on Twitter otherwise there was no need for such a change and it is not going to affect anything. Afterall Samourai has been working fine so far and Knots had that limit all this time

I'm all for adding more flexibility to the settings users can change but this sounds like a malicious centralized move. Not to mention that you don't need to ban other implementations such as Knots if you run a full node like bitcoin core. The only difference in Knots is some of the standard rules and there is a reason why they are called "standard rules", they are preference not a ban worthy offense. For example your node may decide not to relay txs with fee rate lower than 10 sat/vb but that doesn't mean your node should be banned!

The only reason why Samourai guys (ie. a light client) are doing this is because Knots had a very very old standard rule for OP_RETURN limit that never relayed their transactions but they only found out about it recently!

Block size was increased but by using a soft fork instead of a hard fork. Bcash is also like a lot of other copycat coins that were created and its creation was not because of the fork or lack of it.

Keep in mind that bcash is not a shitcoin because it was a hard fork, neither was it because of Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, etc. Instead Bcash is a shitcoin because it created and change and enforced it without reaching majority support. In Bitcoin when we want to change something (soft or hard fork) we first have to reach a threshold of supporters (almost always +90%) before we can move ahead with that change/fork. If we do anything else (like forking with 10% support) we would be creating an altcoin which would be viewed as a shitcoin.

It depends on why the mempool was congested.
If it is because adoption has grown and more people are using bitcoin, then your assumption is correct. By increasing "capacity" the congestion would go away.
But if it is congested because of a spam attack (like this days with Ordinals scam) then increasing the capacity will only make things worse because it would make it cheaper and easier for the attackers to fill the blocks and create another congestion.

Important thing to remember is that before the Ordinals attack we didn't have any severe and lasting  congestion.

Yes it would be. And I strongly disagree with those who say congestion should exist to help miners due to block subsidy going down. Because even after the upcoming halving the miners would still be paid about $135k per block they find at the current price. This is enough incentive so that they don't need to rely on fees.

The real questions are: by how much and when?
We should always keep increasing the capacity, in my opinion. The adoption is increasing and people need to be able to use Bitcoin (BTW more capacity means more txs and more fees which addresses the concern regarding block subsidy) and there needs to be enough block space for that "additional adoption".
But it shouldn't be that big to push us toward centralization where less and less number of people run full nodes.

We've got more bad news for the apartheid regime occupying Palestine and its Zionist supporters as more people around the world are starting to refer to Israel as a terrorist organization. The most recent one was the head of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis when he refers to Israel's actions against Palestinians as terrorism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXHte30VVqE

On another bad news for Zionists, we now know that the Armed Forces of Yemen successfully prevented all shipments being sent to the terrorist organization commonly known as Israel over the past couple of weeks.
And as we can see from the live maps from https://www.marinetraffic.com/ the maritime traffic passing through Yemenis waters, Red Sea and Suez Canal are normal like they've always been. The only change is the shipments that are headed for the terrorist organization have to go around the African continent and face actual sea pirates.

Why do you people see everything in black and while? It is either 0% or 100% for you, isn't it?
In the real world there is a lot of other options between bending over to all Russian demands and bending over for all US demands!

There are a lot of countries in this world that are like "proxies" and have to act like one. That means they should never lean to either side for too long but remain in the middle (different from being neutral). I don't know the technical term but we call it "Pendulum Policy" and the best example of it is Turkey which I mentioned already and sadly you just ignored it.
Turkey has been performing this policy beautifully and for many years. A very dependent country that can not afford to fully lean to either side. This is exactly why Turkey never shut its door to Russia despite the Western pressures. Everything about Turkey is "in the middle", from geography to culture and politics. The US F-35 versus Russian S-400 game they played is an excellent example. That's how the "pendulum" goes back and forth between two sides bringing benefits for the country from both sides while not going fully against either side.

History is filled with cases like this too. I'd say the most significant one is Cuba. Have you heard about Operation Mongoose? A campaign of terrorist attacks against civilians and various operations inside Cuban soil carried out by the US regime.
Why did United States commit terrorism in Cuba? Because Cuban government did in the 60's what Ukraine government did in the 2000's. They allowed the enemy of their neighbor to use their soil for its own operations! As they say "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it".
Didn't "freedom and the right to free decision" apply to Cubans?!!!

The worst part of all this is that you talk about EU and NATO as if they have not done the same exact thing as Russia one way or another! How many countries has NATO invaded? How many civilians they've killed? Heck even as we speak NATO is supporting an ongoing genocide right across the Mediterranean!

Why did you feel the need to single out these 3 countries? Did you think that if people live in "a censored world" in these countries that automatically means there is no censorship in Europe?!! What kind of logic is that?

Are you talking about Yugoslav Wars? Don't assume what I think. I wouldn't even compare the two. If I wanted to compare I compare Ukraine with Cuba as I did above. And I'm not justifying invasion, I'm just narrating how the world works but you just get so defensive because you don't like a different view than the "status quo".

I already said that I'm comparing the two men based on their lack of experience in political scene and bad decisions they've made in their short political carriers. More specifically all the decisions Zelenskly made from 20 May 2019 to 24 February 2022, not from 24 February 2022 onward.

The problem with staying off-chain in a second layer is that you want the ability to settle things on chain anytime you want without delay to avoid being scammed.
In the scenario you explained, Alice could continue updating the "state" for multiple periods and at some point they can create a double spend that sends the 1BTC input to another one of their addresses invalidating all the previous payments. Considering they were paying low fees, there is nothing the receivers could do to reverse that action.
Even without Alice turning scam, there is also the risk of any of the previous transactions being broadcast and confirmed making all the subsequent "state updates" pointless.

Governments do whatever they want, the only thing that matters to us regarding Bitcoin is to make it so that their actions don't affect Bitcoin. That is why Bitcoin was designed to be decentralized and it has achieved that successfully giving it other aspects such as also being censorship resistant.

They don't sound very wise to me. There are countless examples that prove this wrong.

That's unlikely because we already know that with each bull market there is a large number of newcomers who buy bitcoin. We also know that a considerable percentage of these newbies tend to go to the shitcoin market and start buying shitcoins for the first time not knowing what kind of garbage they are wasting their money on.

This means that this time these newbies would also go to this new but fake market called Ordinals Market and try to pay for that garbage hence making the scam spam attack even worse and shoot the fees even higher.

As I've said many times before the severity of this attack is only increasing with time and possibly with price rise.

Have they really done that considering the problem with this idea is not volatility of bitcoin but the volatility of that altcoin? For example if the exchange rate of the altcoin is something like 0.002BTC and they choose to get paid in that altcoin, it can get dumped hard and go down to something like 0.001BTC which is a much bigger loss compared to the tx fee they had to pay.
Not to mention that in order to convert the alcoin back to bitcoin they'd have to go on an exchange, pay a trading fee to convert the altcoin to bitcoin then pay a much bigger withdrawal fee (compared to the tx fee above) to cash out of that CEX.

The problems with Zelenski is not what he is doing now (what else were he going to do? Give up after the invasion and not send the army forward from the safety of his bunker?!! lol)
The problem is all his naïve actions, statements, incitements and "pokes" that led to the conflict with the neighbor! Everything that could have been avoided if an actual politician were in office and for example instead of bringing Russia's enemy #1 to 400 km from Moscow could took both US and Russia by the balls and milk them both for the benefit of his country and ensure its security.

What do you think Erdogan in Turkey has been doing all these years? More so in the past 2 years...

I know that in Europe there is a dictated status quo but if you spend time studying history of what led to the conflict from sources other than the censored mainstream media you can see that when it comes to lack of experience and naïve and in some cases very suspicious behavior that is harmful to the country, both Milei and Zelenski are pretty similar.

It is still too soon to pass the final verdict but after seeing this post on reddit I thought it is good to share it here as an update regarding the first signs of bad decisions that affect the economy in a severely bad way.

Argentina inflation shot up to 160% and at this rate if they actually try replacing Peso with Dollar at some point in the future, regular people won't be left with much in their pockets because of the low exchange rate.

This is the 5 year chart from google showing Peso exchange rate against USD with the unprecedented recent jump and it's not a good start:


P.S. After typing this a dangerous thought passed my mind. Is it possible that this crash is intentional? We've had similar decisions made elsewhere when the government or the central bank had been facing issues for a long time and wanted to make a change (dump their fiat, replace bank notes, etc.) and they dump the exchange rate like this intentionally. In all cases it crushed the economy and the middle class.

So you first say "there is no such international law" but after I provided the actual UN resolutions with page number and even paragraph numbers, you say it is "propaganda"
Good to know that I'm wasting my time talking to a troll.

Supplies being sent to terrorist organizations to aid murdering women and children should be seized and the owners of those ships should be punished according to the international laws. I'm now just repeating myself but attaching the term "civilian" doesn't change the nature of these shipments.

You should first lean how to write Houthis then learn the difference between Armed Forces of Yemen called Ansarollah and Houthis and then learn the fact any organization that fights against the invaders in defense of their homes (like what's happening in Ukraine) is not categorized as terrorism and just because the invaders who are murdering women and children are your friends you can't call them terrorists.

LOL now you deny the history.

Why should I bother when you are going to call other UN resolutions and other resolutions by the international communities as "propaganda" like before?
In fact I'll stop wasting more of my time. All this information is available on the internet for anybody to do a research and find for themselves. Arguing with a Zionist supporter like you is pointless.

Classic Zionist terrorist propaganda trying to hide behind Semites and Jews although Zionists have nothing to do with either one of them. In fact one of the biggest protests against Zionists is currently taking place in New York, US by the Jewish community.
This is exactly what ISIS did too. The radical terrorists that hid behind Islam and Muslims and were destroyed by Muslims too. Hopefully the Zionist terrorists will be eradicated with the hands of Jews and Semites soon.

Actually the difference between this spam attack and the previous ones we'd experienced in Bitcoin world is that those participating in the Ordinals Attack have the chance to make a profit that could potentially cover the cost of their attack. It's the same as altcoin market. We know they get dumped and people lose money but because they have a chance of making a profit, they continue paying the exchange fees and endure losses in trading them.

In other words the attackers may not even care if they end up paying 1000 satoshi/vbyte if they think they can make a profit on the garbage they are buying.