Uf

Do you know of any examples of justice transactions happening in the wild? Has this scenario ever actually happened?

Why don't you focus your amazing skills on keeping Bitcoin "peer to peer electronic cash"? Focus that energy on safeguarding a pristine blockchain.

Because I understand that puritanism is doomed and don't want to waste my time.

I'm glad my fellow biomedical scientists don't approach healthcare with attitude.

Are you referring to a stale channel state that's been published that is now outside of the CSV timelock period? Yes, competing for confirmation in a block in that case would be paramount. But prior to that you'd still have plenty of time (days) to penalize a stale force close attempt due to the to_self_delay that you set for the channel when you opened it. A time-locked transaction wouldn't validate on any node prior to that.

FWIW, I agree with you on the whole mempool, spam, OP_RETURN, debate. But just wanted to clarify on this scenario in particular.

Dickbutts never occurred to me 🤔

I'm just gonna leave this here for the sake of discussion

🤔🤔🤨

Speculation: you can't possibly know how people value their dickbutts.

Directionally correct speculation

The argument is “Should the lighting node be allowed to configure his own bone to get fucked by dickbutts?” Yes, mom, that’s what I’m arguing about on the internet today.

Node not bone. But bone was a funny typo

Ln node operators do pay attention: They follow their earnings, adjust the channel fees, rebalance the channels when needed, check for new incoming channels and closing ones. It's not a trivial job, and improvements can be made but that is a Ln issue, not a bitcoin one. When the "inscriptions gang of morons" were spamming the mempool with thousands of junk transactions, there was no way to adequately determine the correct fees, and txs could stay stuck for days even when they were set to mine in the next 2-3 blocks. Spamming "monkey jpgs" to everyone won't solve the problem. What we need are smarter algorithms to estimate correct fees and I believe that can be achieved even without loading all the junk into everyone's pool. I personally believe the trade-off is not worth it, and if removing the OP_RETURN limit is not set as an opt-in option, then I will either have to patch core myself or switch to #knots. Neither of which I'm looking forward to do.

That's a rather forced example. Unilateral channel closures always have a timelock — in practice, it's at least a day, and often up to a week. That’s the window during which a justice transaction can be confirmed. In your example, you're assuming there's a high volume of spam on the network. On top of that, the spam transactions have high fees — significantly above the average for non-spam transactions, which is a critical part of your assumption. So, it's possible that the justice transaction wouldn't get confirmed within a day. But that's still quite unlikely. In reality, spam levels are low. And that's exactly what the relay policy is for — to keep it that way. 😎

Obsessed.

Would you support limiting witness data in conjunction with expanding OP_RETURN in Core then? Seems like that would prevent the situation in the first place. I understand there would be a short term dick butt spam fraud danger in this transition… is it politically impossible?

please keep spewing bullshit. free @Bitcoin Knots marketing. send the knots runners higher

Consensus changes are a lot trickier. I'd rather us find a dynamic block size solution.

I can’t tell if you’re trolling me

😑

He prefers to focus on shitcoin scams

What’s the urgency for the change Jameson? Do you see something that will render the Bitcoin network unusable? Network seems to be doing great without any interventions…….

YOU are the dickbutt. why are you even here? fuck off and go retire and read something to fill the emptiness. alternatively, go sit in the sun by a river. the most important variable, in whatever path you choose, is that you shut the fuck up.

bellend :-)