On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 06:25:18PM +0530, Mike Hearn wrote:
> Given that the fee drop puts fees in "real" (i.e. dollar) terms back to
> where they were some months ago, it seems odd to claim this is creating
> vulnerabilities that didn't exist in the previous version. The cost of an
> attack would be the same as before.

No it's not. The cost is only incurred in the transactions actually get
mined, and unlike before the drop appears to be well under the
break-even orphan cost of transactions; we've got no reason to think the
clearance rate of these low-fee transactions will be significant.


But anyway, mostly I'm writing this to register my strong opposition
knowing full well that I don't expect it to change your minds.

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000eb671d932a8d310e8ab963c53b2be8a27bd5de2a712c2f59