pull down to refresh
@Murch
stacking since: #127838
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Murch 1h \ parent \ on: Ancient Sippy Cups Reveal Prehistoric Parenting Secrets Education
I'm sure that access to additional milk was a great boon to children back then.
Food safety improvements like pasteurization reduce crap like salmonella, tuberculosis, and food poisoning that we can all do without.
Even in 1950 one in four newborns died in childhood.
I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that that predictions are not in the process of coming true. The article describes what a temperature increase of 3-7°C would do, and we're at +1.25°C.
We have had unprecedented droughts in Europe and North America, an uptick in wildfires, hurricanes, and floods. The Maldives have experienced erosion in 90% of their country and are spending half of their national budget on combatting the effects of rising sea levels, we're seeing increased desertification and exhaustion of ground water in other parts of the world. So, the predictions seem directionally correct, if perhaps not completely accurate in magnitude.
Average global temperature has increased by over 1.25°C in the past fifty years, and we have ample evidence that this has been enough to affect weather and wind systems, and affect ocean currents as well as increasing extreme weather incidents. TBH, before I moved to the US, I wasn’t even aware that anyone seriously doubted this—it’s almost unanimous scientific consensus with no serious institutions holding contrarian opinions.
I sincerely believe that climate change will severely impact the quality of life in most regions of the planet in the next 30–50 years unless humanity musters a staunch response to it.
I’ll take what appears to be the contrarian position in this forum: yes, human activity is the main cause of climate change.
Torrent is a strawman. The transaction data in the Bitcoin network is forwarded to all full nodes, while torrent data only flows from the seeders to the requesting client. Besides, Torrent has long required leechers to upload some proportion of the consumed download bandwidth to prevent excess one-sided bandwidth use.
I will consider your disagreement without refuting my arguments as admitting that you do not have evidence for your position.
As a side note, consider also setting incrementalrelayfee=0 instead of the default 3000 in order to relay replacement transactions which fee-rates don't change.
- The default value for the incremental relay feerate is 1000 ṩ/kvB, not 3000 ṩ/vB.
- A single node setting this to 0 ṩ/kvB will not cause endless amounts of data to be forwarded, simply because other network participants will not even be aware, and we currently would not see any attempts to make replacements without paying more.
- Many nodes on the network setting this policy would be problematic: any malicious actor becoming aware of this would be able to endlessly cycle the same two transactions replacing each other among the part of the network that has decreased their incremental relay feerate to 0. This would waste the affected nodes’ bandwidth, and once their ISPs throttle them, essentially remove them from the relay network. We could argue over whether 1 ṩ/vB is too much or too little, but dropping the requirement that the fees in the mempool increase for replacements is definitely problematic: it’s asking nodes to open themselves up to bandwidth wasting and DOS vectors.
- I showed that your initial recommendation was problematic and now you are shifting goal posts without engaging with the substance of my argument. You can do better.
Your claim is that miners are considering transactions paying less than
minTxRelayFeerate. The transaction you showed was manually prioritized which indicates that more was paid for it. To support your claim, you should show evidence of a miner picking up transactions with sub-minimum feerates via their block template.I have explained this above already. Just rejecting my argument without showing why I’m wrong is not particularly convincing. You are either arguing in bad faith or you have a tenuous grasp of the context.
No that’s not okay. The network forwarding endless amounts of useless data is an obvious bandwidth wasting attack and denial of service vector.
I asked for a block with transactions paying less than the minimum feerate at the tail end, because that would indicate that a miner has actually configured their block template building node with a lower minimum feerate.
Your example transaction has a fee of zero and is the first transaction after the coinbase in the block. That indicates that it was prioritized for inclusion, probably due to out-of-band payment. Blockspace being sold out-of-band does not support your claim.
If you want to convince me otherwise, you can show me a block that fulfills those criteria, especially zero fee transactions are not a good start, though.
Prove it by showing me a single block whose tail end is composed of transactions paying less than
minRelayTxFeerate.Let’s say I send a 200 vbyte transaction with a fee of 200 sats. Then I get to send a replacement for that transaction that is also 200 vbytes and pays 200 sats.
How much did my second transaction increase the available fees in the mempool? Zilch.
Ergo, the relay of my second transaction was free, and I can repeat that until one of my transactions gets confirmed.
Accepting replacements that do not pay a higher feerate than the original means that the sender paid nothing for the relay of additional data.
I am not sure I see the point of doing this while miners apparently do not consider including transactions below the minimum transaction relay feerate of 1 ṩ/vB: we do see a bunch of transactions with feerates below 1 ṩ/vB bumbling around in mempools that accept them, but as far as I am aware, no miner has included any significant amount of them in blocks even if their blocks then were not full.
As long as there are no miners including them, you are just wasting bandwidth.
Imagine every node operator adopts that policy. What sort of consequences would you expect of making it free to send any amount of data to all bitcoin nodes?
The utility of making many dust UTXOs spendable again also makes it much cheaper to create more dust UTXOs.