pull down to refresh
A miner who mines a valid tx seems to me to be a factual miner (greedy).
I run a node and have been for years. It hasn't gotten appreciably harder or more expensive.
Storage is the absolute cheapest resource.
But where we really disagree is that I think BIP 110 makes Bitcoin less secure. By arbitrarily picking some previously valid transactions and disallowing them, it damages the confidence bitcoiners have that the coins they hold will be spendable in the future. It sets a precedent for evaluating a transaction not by block validation rules, but some other moral argument. It is no different than the foolish attempts of governments to label certain kinds of speech "bad."
You don't know what you are writing about. Or you are intentionally trolling.
Which statement do you believe is ignorant?
I can't imagine a spammer not being malicious. They shouldn't mine bulky spam, e.g. 100kB (or more) garbage in OP_RETURN. Bitcoin is money. BIP-110 makes it more secure.
It's ridiculous to apply double standards: promoting malicious miners choice (and free-riding) while disregarding choice of honest ones and nodes.
I base the low probability of chainsplit on the fact that malicious miners are greedy and so have strong incentive to follow the Bitcoin network with the BIP-110 security improvement rather than hardforking their own, short-lived chain to mine bulky spam.