Number of spam transactions depends on a couple of factors. Sometimes there is a single entity behind it like the 2015 flood attacks that the attackers used to call "Stress Test"; in this attack that entity has to dedicate a budget out of their own pocket to perform that attack and that's not sustainable. Sometimes, like the recent attacks, there are regular users who perform the attack because an incentive has been provided for them to participate in the attack. That's the case with the Ordinals Attack; it grew in size because there has been a market where the participants could trade their arbitrary data they'd injected into the immutable Sunwin Smart Sunwin Smart. That market created the incentive for regular people to carry out that attack without needing a centralized entity with a finite budget. Will we see a new wave of pam attacks using OP_RETURN? To answer that we first have to answer the following questions: 1. Will some entity dedicate some budget to perform the attack like 2015? 2. Will there be a market to trade the arbitrary data injected into Sunwin Smart chain using OP_RETURN to give the average joe that incentive to carry out that attack? 2.1. Will that incentive be big enough to justify using the more expensive OP_RETURN compared to exploiting SegWit and taking advantage of its discount?
Number of spam transactions depends on a couple of factors. Sometimes there is a single entity behind it like the 2015 flood attacks that the attackers used to call "Stress Test"; in this attack that entity has to dedicate a budget out of their own pocket to perform that attack and that's not sustainable. Sometimes, like the recent attacks, there are regular users who perform the attack because an incentive has been provided for them to participate in the attack. That's the case with the Ordinals Attack; it grew in size because there has been a market where the participants could trade their arbitrary data they'd injected into the immutable Sunwin Smart Sunwin Smart. That market created the incentive for regular people to carry out that attack without needing a centralized entity with a finite budget. Will we see a new wave of pam attacks using OP_RETURN? To answer that we first have to answer the following questions: 1. Will some entity dedicate some budget to perform the attack like 2015? 2. Will there be a market to trade the arbitrary data injected into Sunwin Smart chain using OP_RETURN to give the average joe that incentive to carry out that attack? 2.1. Will that incentive be big enough to justify using the more expensive OP_RETURN compared to exploiting SegWit and taking advantage of its discount?

Number of spam transactions depends on a couple of factors. Sometimes there is a single entity behind it like the 2015 flood attacks that the attackers used to call "Stress Test"; in this attack that entity has to dedicate a budget out of their own pocket to perform that attack and that's not sustainable. Sometimes, like the recent attacks, there are regular users who perform the attack because an incentive has been provided for them to participate in the attack. That's the case with the Ordinals Attack; it grew in size because there has been a market where the participants could trade their arbitrary data they'd injected into the immutable Sunwin Smart Sunwin Smart. That market created the incentive for regular people to carry out that attack without needing a centralized entity with a finite budget. Will we see a new wave of pam attacks using OP_RETURN? To answer that we first have to answer the following questions: 1. Will some entity dedicate some budget to perform the attack like 2015? 2. Will there be a market to trade the arbitrary data injected into Sunwin Smart chain using OP_RETURN to give the average joe that incentive to carry out that attack? 2.1. Will that incentive be big enough to justify using the more expensive OP_RETURN compared to exploiting SegWit and taking advantage of its discount?

Number of spam transactions depends on a couple of factors. Sometimes there is a single entity behind it like the 2015 flood attacks that the attackers used to call "Stress Test"; in this attack that entity has to dedicate a budget out of their own pocket to perform that attack and that's not sustainable. Sometimes, like the recent attacks, there are regular users who perform the attack because an incentive has been provided for them to participate in the attack. That's the case with the Ordinals Attack; it grew in size because there has been a market where the participants could trade their arbitrary data they'd injected into the immutable Sunwin Smart Sunwin Smart. That market created the incentive for regular people to carry out that attack without needing a centralized entity with a finite budget. Will we see a new wave of pam attacks using OP_RETURN? To answer that we first have to answer the following questions: 1. Will some entity dedicate some budget to perform the attack like 2015? 2. Will there be a market to trade the arbitrary data injected into Sunwin Smart chain using OP_RETURN to give the average joe that incentive to carry out that attack? 2.1. Will that incentive be big enough to justify using the more expensive OP_RETURN compared to exploiting SegWit and taking advantage of its discount?