The question is, spammers  spammers

this is about the "spam" cries. and a way to solve it using CODE. not fee's

though there are spam attacks. we need to truly stop using a umbrella term, in regards to calling lots of different types of transactions "spam".
for me i consider BLOATED transactions that spend funds EVERY block an obvious spam attack.
yet others treat simply spending less than 0.1btc a spam attack.(facepalm)

in a world outside of america/europe. 0.01btc for instance can be a weeks wage and 0.001btc can be multiple hours of labour.
for the unbanked developing countries we should not be considering something spam, purely on the basis of how much is spent, but on bloated transactions and transactions that are spent too frequently outside what appears normal spending behaviour.

fee war:
140/byte - https://bitcoinfees.21.co/
= 0.00063000 for average 450byte tx ($0.65c)
= 0.00031640 for leanest 226byte tx ($0.33c)

Cuba see a lean tx costing 6hrs36mins minimum wage. see an average tx costing 13hrs minimum wage.
Georgia see a lean tx costing 6hrs36mins minimum wage. see an average tx costing 13hrs minimum wage.
gambia see a lean tx costing 2hrs32mins minimum wage. see an average tx costing 5hrs minimum wage.
egypt see a lean tx costing 1hrs2mins minimum wage. see an average tx costing 2hrs5mins minimum wage.
and so on

anyone see the problem yet

The core team already caused the issues regarding the transaction delay as well as the increasing price of transaction and if this continues like this you can imagine the amount of transaction fees they you need to input a couple of years from now.I think with the recent code changes the core are telling us that they do not want transactions onchain only commercial hub settlements.

this is about the "spam" cries. and a way to solve it using CODE. not fee's

though there are spam attacks. we need to truly stop using a umbrella term, in regards to calling lots of different types of transactions "spam".
for me i consider BLOATED transactions that spend funds EVERY block an obvious spam attack.
yet others treat simply spending less than 0.1btc a spam attack.(facepalm)

in a world outside of america/europe. 0.01btc for instance can be a weeks wage and 0.001btc can be multiple hours of labour.
for the unbanked developing countries we should not be considering something spam, purely on the basis of how much is spent, but on bloated transactions and transactions that are spent too frequently outside what appears normal spending behaviour.

---

bitcoins 'priority' calculation are no longer appropriate, many pools dont even use it anymore.
the calculation of:
(value *age) / size. does not help anyone.
because someone with 1000btc can respend multiple times an hour fee free. but someone with only 0.Xbtc has to wait weeks or pay a premium. victimising the poorer nations effectively
thus it only makes it a calculation beneficial for the rich.
the 'priority' calculation needs to change to be more about bloat and age. and not about value.

---

eg knowing that the blocksize limits how much data is allowed. a new calculation needs to have considerations of making there be a points system for blocksize vs tx size. more so then making the value the consideration changer
 so that the leaner the tx size is, the more points are rewarded. which when blocksizes increases. would make the leaner transactions earn more points for staying lean.

EG
(blocksize/tx size)*age

txsize      blocksize   age         result   
226         1000000   1            4425      10min
226         1000000   6            26549     1 hour
226         1000000   46          203540    7h 40min
450         1000000   1            2222      10min
450         1000000   6            13333     1 hour
450         1000000   90          200000    15h
100,000   1000000   1            10          10min
100,000   1000000   6            60          1 hour
100,000   1000000   144         1440      16h 40min
100,000   1000000   20160      201600   5months

imagining where the priority target was 200,000
this means if super lean you can spend funds every 7 hours with priority. but being bloated (100k blocks) you have to wait months.
this then makes bloated transactions PAY MORE to make up for the missing points.

---

it also means that rich spammer cannot bypass it by just moving a larger reserve for free.
ofcourse my example can include extra variables. such as if people voluntarily put in a CLTV maturity of X blocks to show they wont respend for atleast X blocks (because CLTV prevents it) they can gain extra points too

EG
((blocksize/tx size)*age)*CLTV confirms.
=((1000000/226)*6)*6      159292
=((1000000/226)*6)*7      185840
=((1000000/226)*6)*8      212389

which is an example of someone who naturally may want to spend every couple hours. where their funds are only an hour old.
226         1000000   6            26549     1 hour
dont have to wait >6 more hours
226         1000000   46          203540    7h 40min
they can just voluntarily tell the network they are happy to lock themselves into a 1hour 20minute maturity after the respend.
=((1000000/226)*6)*8      212389
to get priority.

meaning if you volunteer that you are not going to respend those funds for 8+ confirms. you get priority. which mitigates the respend every block true spam. because this calculation averages a 2-3 hour respend acceptable natural human timescale.

it also helps by giving users an option to say it needs to be accepted sooner.(a true "hey guys i really need this to go through, but accept the punishment for this need) making the wait PRIOR to confirm less, by making the waiting time AFTER confirm, more. thus a way to show the network who actually NEEDS priority the most

though a bloat spammer can just put a mega long CLTV on a bloated tx to gain priority for their first tx, they atleast once confirmed the funds wont be respent fast due to the CLTV maturity needing to be met
(no matter what the priority is of the second attempt, CLTV prevents respends until mature)

it makes it so that if you want to spend sooner (imagine its not maturity locked first) the sooner you want to spend the longer you have to wait to respend AFTER confirm. thus solving the wait for confirm 'trust' people getting paid dilemma
EG
if matured funds are only aged 3 blocks instead of 6. you have to volunteer not being able to re-spend then for 16 blocks instead of 8
=((1000000/226)*3)*14   185840
=((1000000/226)*3)*15   199115
=((1000000/226)*3)*16   212389

so that the faster you want to spend(after maturity) the longer you cant respend the second time. thus effectively stopping a spammer spending every block because they end up waiting atleast 2 hours before conditions are met

---

though my calculation is not perfect for every instance of utility. i think that usual / natural spending behaviour of only buying things once every couple hours is normal.. and mitigating the spend every 10 minute intentional spam.
for those wanting to bypass this because they GENUINELY need to spend every 10 minutes.. (not intention spam, but a niche need)
such as the small niche of day traders/faucet raiders/gamblers
they can use the niche market commercial LN service VOLUNTARILY to get their many spends an hour.

thus having an equal balance of people that only spend lets say once a week that dont need LN can happily spend onchain. but those that do need many spends an hour can use LN... natural balance is restored

im sure someone can be inspired by my idea of changing the priority calculation. by adding in or using variables in a different format to achieve something better then my example calculation formula.. and be way way better than the current priority formulae

It is not the ratio of Bitcoin to USD that is increasing but the rate of Bitcoin itself.  10k satoshi was a good enough transaction fee months ago but now it is more than 30k sat sometimes going above 50k sat.  I think it is the people who want to get prioritized is to be blame. Meaning the user themselves.  And it seems the coded script itself.

http://bitcoinfees.21.co/ shows us the amount of fee that we are supposed to pay.

+ it doesn't decrease fee when mempool is empty and keeps it as high as it was before.
+ when mempool size is rising, it bumps the fee amount in big steps instead of smallest possible. (eg 101 s/b is bigger than 100 s/b but they suggest 110 instead of 101)

take the way devs implemented the tx fee.. not only subverting coded methods of 'priority' which would have alleviated the war, but also using 'averages' which dont make the fee's drop reactively when demand is low. but actually keeps fee's up. even when one block is low demand.
EG take a 25 block average.. imagine first 24 are 0.0001 and the 25th is 0.0025 then look at the 'average' after that.. even if demand was near 0 and no one was pushing the fee up.... the "average" itself pushes up

take the way devs implemented the tx fee.. not only subverting coded methods of 'priority' which would have alleviated the war, but also using 'averages' which dont make the fee's drop reactively when demand is low. but actually keeps fee's up. even when one block is low demand.
EG take a 25 block average.. imagine first 24 are 0.0001 and the 25th is 0.0025 then look at the 'average' after that.. even if demand was near 0 and no one was pushing the fee up.... the "average" itself pushes up

I doubt gangsters are behind this,

fighting for territorial control

I heard that he's only admin not owner. If you think they are prejudiced agaisnt bu why they didn't ban you?

Maybe Unlimited Chinese miners pay for every favorable post about BU like in signature campaign.  

You dipshits will never get community consensus, only hashrate majority.  

Let's just hope common sense prevails and digital gold stays digital gold.

Is there really any money to be made with atms?

I assumed it would be peanuts. Certainly not enough to attract maniacs.

That's an interesting set of comments which may very well be true to one degree or another.
2. I am guessing the gangs here in my city do not have their own BTC ATMs, but have not looked into that possibility.

Their goal, the lawsuit alleges, is to put other operators at a disadvantage through extortion and destruction of property.

Ok I did now know the exact date, I've been here only since ~ 2013/ 2014,

This right here is why I love bitcoin, even if you transfer 100,000$ you can't get your funds locked or stuck in a 180 day hold or some bullshit.

Well I know currently there is already people who can hack private keys from public keys from using random strings of text and numbers or something along those lines. I hope that, in theory, these public keys with SSN and other important information can't be hacked.

What do you think, in the future, blockchain technology will take over. Personally I really hope to see this apply in banks, currently there is no safe and fast way to send money via bank to bank transfer, using block chain you could send money in any amount with low fee from one bank to another bank. This could support a LARGE amount of businesses alone, potentially making this technology more and more popular as long as the government would allow the idea of large amounts of money being transferred like this. Let me know what everyone thinks about potential blockchain-technology-businesses could be and what it's application's could be.