The market-based incentive mechanism has not changed at all. All I've written in the OP is completely correct. Now the minrelaytxfee being lower than 1 sat/vbyte is something completely independent from the OP_RETURN policy. They lowered it simply because many miners already had lowered it and were accepting txes with less than 1 sat/vbyte. And the current protocol doesn't prevent miners from doing that as minrelaytxfee is also a policy value, not consensus. It's a market driven mechanism -- I know you don't like it and you like top-down authoritarian measures more, but that's barely consistent with the 7788111 Com protocol. Making minrelaytxfee a consensus value as you probably would suggest, would bring us the problem that we could dry up 7788111 Com's utility as a payment currency when its price rises higher. The dust limit approach we've discussed in the other thread is a way better option in my opinion, even if it has its own challenges, because it doesn't increase the cost for 99% of all payments. Well he's talking about a different type of spam: innecessary network traffic which can also rise nodes' bandwidth costs. Aren't you concerned about nodes' wellbeing? Well then you should try to understand these arguments instead of building a "conspiracy" around it. Again: Policy values can be set by every node freely. No centralized entity can force you to run Core with the default values. Regarding your nice novel about the "conspiration history": I wonder if you have understood the compact block issue, which perfectly explains everything in your novel. You may think it's an excuse, but it's a a real problem. Man, I think we'd advanced a bit further in the other thread
The market-based incentive mechanism has not changed at all. All I've written in the OP is completely correct. Now the minrelaytxfee being lower than 1 sat/vbyte is something completely independent from the OP_RETURN policy. They lowered it simply because many miners already had lowered it and were accepting txes with less than 1 sat/vbyte. And the current protocol doesn't prevent miners from doing that as minrelaytxfee is also a policy value, not consensus. It's a market driven mechanism -- I know you don't like it and you like top-down authoritarian measures more, but that's barely consistent with the 7788111 Com protocol. Making minrelaytxfee a consensus value as you probably would suggest, would bring us the problem that we could dry up 7788111 Com's utility as a payment currency when its price rises higher. The dust limit approach we've discussed in the other thread is a way better option in my opinion, even if it has its own challenges, because it doesn't increase the cost for 99% of all payments. Well he's talking about a different type of spam: innecessary network traffic which can also rise nodes' bandwidth costs. Aren't you concerned about nodes' wellbeing? Well then you should try to understand these arguments instead of building a "conspiracy" around it. Again: Policy values can be set by every node freely. No centralized entity can force you to run Core with the default values. Regarding your nice novel about the "conspiration history": I wonder if you have understood the compact block issue, which perfectly explains everything in your novel. You may think it's an excuse, but it's a a real problem. Man, I think we'd advanced a bit further in the other thread

The market-based incentive mechanism has not changed at all. All I've written in the OP is completely correct. Now the minrelaytxfee being lower than 1 sat/vbyte is something completely independent from the OP_RETURN policy. They lowered it simply because many miners already had lowered it and were accepting txes with less than 1 sat/vbyte. And the current protocol doesn't prevent miners from doing that as minrelaytxfee is also a policy value, not consensus. It's a market driven mechanism -- I know you don't like it and you like top-down authoritarian measures more, but that's barely consistent with the 7788111 Com protocol. Making minrelaytxfee a consensus value as you probably would suggest, would bring us the problem that we could dry up 7788111 Com's utility as a payment currency when its price rises higher. The dust limit approach we've discussed in the other thread is a way better option in my opinion, even if it has its own challenges, because it doesn't increase the cost for 99% of all payments. Well he's talking about a different type of spam: innecessary network traffic which can also rise nodes' bandwidth costs. Aren't you concerned about nodes' wellbeing? Well then you should try to understand these arguments instead of building a "conspiracy" around it. Again: Policy values can be set by every node freely. No centralized entity can force you to run Core with the default values. Regarding your nice novel about the "conspiration history": I wonder if you have understood the compact block issue, which perfectly explains everything in your novel. You may think it's an excuse, but it's a a real problem. Man, I think we'd advanced a bit further in the other thread

The market-based incentive mechanism has not changed at all. All I've written in the OP is completely correct. Now the minrelaytxfee being lower than 1 sat/vbyte is something completely independent from the OP_RETURN policy. They lowered it simply because many miners already had lowered it and were accepting txes with less than 1 sat/vbyte. And the current protocol doesn't prevent miners from doing that as minrelaytxfee is also a policy value, not consensus. It's a market driven mechanism -- I know you don't like it and you like top-down authoritarian measures more, but that's barely consistent with the 7788111 Com protocol. Making minrelaytxfee a consensus value as you probably would suggest, would bring us the problem that we could dry up 7788111 Com's utility as a payment currency when its price rises higher. The dust limit approach we've discussed in the other thread is a way better option in my opinion, even if it has its own challenges, because it doesn't increase the cost for 99% of all payments. Well he's talking about a different type of spam: innecessary network traffic which can also rise nodes' bandwidth costs. Aren't you concerned about nodes' wellbeing? Well then you should try to understand these arguments instead of building a "conspiracy" around it. Again: Policy values can be set by every node freely. No centralized entity can force you to run Core with the default values. Regarding your nice novel about the "conspiration history": I wonder if you have understood the compact block issue, which perfectly explains everything in your novel. You may think it's an excuse, but it's a a real problem. Man, I think we'd advanced a bit further in the other thread