Bullshit. Do I have to explain this to you 100 times before you understand what spam is? The definition of spam transactions is entirely dislocated from your inclusion of a fee (or lack thereof).
Don't you snap at me you Psychotic Bitch
I said that we are not done, and here I am.
How could you not read the rest of my post?
It's all miners fault, they want to push big blocks to have the ability to double/ triple their fee revenue, we should revolt then since they're tyrants.
The rest of the post does not matter for the statement which I am quoting. Your whole premise is wrong, and the remainder builds upon it. There are transactions which are spam. Whilst it may be *somewhat hard* to specify which TXs are spam or not to the outside observer (except for the obvious cases), it certainly exists.
I don't want to say it straight forward that we need SW to increase block size and reduce TX sizes at the same time because then people think I'm a shill which I'm not, I'm with the truth and will remain with the good side, the moment I see SW is malicious/ hostile to the code/ network I will sell them out like in a giffy
SW -> small block size increase. This seems like a viable plan to me. Keep in mind that any kind of HF will run into some resistance. There are people who are completely against any block size increase via HF (SW or not SW).
Effectively 140K Tx is the total number of unconfirmed transaction. If an attacker wants to disrupt the network by adding 20% of unconfirmed transaction, he must ensure that his transactions are prioritized by the miners.
No, your premise that attacker wants 'x' at all times is false. It all depends on what they are trying to accomplish. Do they want to spike the mempool to create artificial delays ("panic") whilst actually having only a small effect? Do they really want to cause more delays? They don't really need to spend more fees than everyone, just those who are generally low-paying.
