Transaction

f67b132db94b4ff590a3dc2bbcd103d2a36ccf0a2ff7c5f07cfbe4fb7fdfe6c8
Timestamp (utc)
2024-03-24 10:46:55
Fee Paid
0.00000015 BSV
(
0.01448982 BSV
-
0.01448967 BSV
)
Fee Rate
10.68 sat/KB
Version
1
Confirmations
101,308
Size Stats
1,404 B

2 Outputs

Total Output:
0.01448967 BSV
  • j"1LAnZuoQdcKCkpDBKQMCgziGMoPC4VQUckM€<div class="post">In a free market for transaction fees,<br/>spamming the network will have the effect of increasing transaction fees for everybody. <br/><br/>Maybe Mr Burns is more than just a common griefer. Maybe he is a miner with more rational motivations. <br/><br/>A miner has more to gain than to lose by spamming. Yes, eventually a spam equilibrium will be reached where the marginal amount you lose in your spam to the transaction fees of competing miners equals the marginal amount gained from your own transaction fees. &nbsp;But that is still a macroeconomically subobtimal situation. <br/><br/>To escape this <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_trap">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_trap</a> social trap, more than a market is needed. <br/><br/>Some simple but effective rules should be hardcoded into the Bitcion protocol/specification itself, to discourage the excesses of spamming.<br/><br/>I know that this approach probably sounds too "top-down" for the free market enthusiasts in this forum, but the rules should of course be purely voluntary and consensus based, like the 21M rule we have already.<br/><br/><br/></div> text/html
    https://whatsonchain.com/tx/f67b132db94b4ff590a3dc2bbcd103d2a36ccf0a2ff7c5f07cfbe4fb7fdfe6c8