Transaction

eb5dbc92a72c2a9c4da59a43853c8fc4e51a5ef3dc597739db933ed443e2e48e
Timestamp (utc)
2024-03-24 13:10:01
Fee Paid
0.00000014 BSV
(
0.01265610 BSV
-
0.01265596 BSV
)
Fee Rate
10.27 sat/KB
Version
1
Confirmations
98,355
Size Stats
1,362 B

2 Outputs

Total Output:
0.01265596 BSV
  • j"1LAnZuoQdcKCkpDBKQMCgziGMoPC4VQUckMV<div class="post">Asking as a general question, is the whole concept of throwing the data into transactions a dead issue now?&nbsp; With the release of Bitcoin v. 3.1.18 Satoshi has essentially thrown down the gauntlet that adding such data to transactions is considered a form of an attack on the network.&nbsp; Miners who aren't using a codebase derived from the reference implementation still may add blocks to the network involving these "goofy" transaction packets, but by design the reference implementation will not recognize the transactions.&nbsp; If we work around the <b>IsStandard()</b> algorithm, it is only going to change to stop whatever changes we make.<br/><br/>This is a subtle but interesting issue where essentially the only way we can guarantee that a domain transaction can be put into a block chain is to create a custom miner and compete for blocks to put those transactions into the network.&nbsp; That makes for some interesting problems in terms of latency for an effort like DomainCoin.<br/><br/>Should we move onto the forked version of Bitcoin to implement this idea again?</div> text/html
    https://whatsonchain.com/tx/eb5dbc92a72c2a9c4da59a43853c8fc4e51a5ef3dc597739db933ed443e2e48e