Matches for nubbins, 45317 total results Sorted by newest | relevance
Mon Mar 07 14:07:10 UTC 2016 <nubbins`> what bitbet payout recipient wouldn't want free coins
Mon Mar 07 14:06:48 UTC 2016 <nubbins`> an actor doing it on purpose, sure
Mon Mar 07 14:06:24 UTC 2016 <nubbins`> if you think the relaying of A1 was triggered by B, you're daft
Mon Mar 07 14:05:14 UTC 2016 <nubbins`> davout +1
Mon Mar 07 14:04:55 UTC 2016 <nubbins`> but if i have a massive backlog, no 0-fee bum is gonna get a free ride
Mon Mar 07 14:04:20 UTC 2016 <nubbins`> once my backlog has been eliminated, i have no qualms about relaying A1
Mon Mar 07 14:04:05 UTC 2016 <nubbins`> look: i receive A1 when it's first broadcast, i hold onto it but i DON'T RELAY IT because my backlog is too big.
Mon Mar 07 13:58:55 UTC 2016 <nubbins`> do we have a reason to think which was done?
Mon Mar 07 13:58:35 UTC 2016 <nubbins`> asciilifeform the age of A1's inputs ranged from a couple days to a couple months iirc
Mon Mar 07 13:58:16 UTC 2016 <nubbins`> and i wouldn't even have to crack open two cold wallets
Mon Mar 07 13:58:08 UTC 2016 <nubbins`> again, i could create 10k tx's right now with older inputs than A1
Mon Mar 07 13:57:34 UTC 2016 <nubbins`> calling A1 spam was a stretch and not correct, but calling A1 anything other than the absolute lowest priority is unreasonable
Mon Mar 07 13:56:48 UTC 2016 <nubbins`> how does a node operator distinguish between the 50,000 spam 0-fee tx's and bitbet's 0-fee tx?
Mon Mar 07 13:55:48 UTC 2016 <nubbins`> neither did the 20,000 transactions ahead of it with higher priority
Mon Mar 07 13:55:37 UTC 2016 <nubbins`> no, it didn't
Mon Mar 07 13:55:12 UTC 2016 <nubbins`> 0-fee tx followed by 3 double-spend attempts in the midst of a mempool backlog
Mon Mar 07 13:54:36 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> nubbins`: how so?
Mon Mar 07 13:54:13 UTC 2016 <nubbins`> A1 was spam.
Mon Mar 07 13:54:07 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> nubbins`: most of them are spam
Mon Mar 07 13:53:51 UTC 2016 <nubbins`> 6k unconfirmed tx's right now