So this is a discussion on X started by Retarded Pleb:
https://x.com/retardedpleb/status/2064781974464553311Retarded Pleb wrote:
Miners who mined the last 25 BIP110 blocks have collectively lost 0.07 BTC in fees
So I replied: 0.07BTC is around $4600. Compare that to the block reward for those 25 blocks at 78.125BTC (or $5.14 million USD), those malware fees make up a ridiculously low amount of ~$184 USD per block, of less than 0.0089% of the total miner reward.
Of course, he had to reply to following retard logic:
Imagine how much they would have lost if the fees had been higher than 1 sat. RIP BIP110 miners
Now, if you are a dickpic.jpeg loving coretard, you probably 100% agree with this idea that malware makes up an important part of the miner subsidy. And that this would become more important in a high fee environment.
The problem with this retarded logic is that it directly contradict the core mantra that "the fees should be the only filter". Because that implies that higher fees would push malware assholes out of Bitcoin. Yet the user name 'Retarded Pleb' is basically exposing the core gaslighting bullshit about the fees being the filter.
Are higher fees going to make more miner profits for miners who fill their blocks with malware? Or are the higher fees going to push out all the malware assholes?
The problem with your retarded " security budget" mantra, is that it implies a permanent place on Bitcoin for malware assholes. All the while professing they will run away as soon as miner fees go up.
Cognitive dissonance at best, most likely retard gas lighting.
