The fact that people want to completely ignore taproot for the sake of shutting down Ordinals clearly signs there's something wrong in the Bitcoin community.
to make certain opcodes be punished at a higher fee rate than other peoples normal transactions using a fee formulae
Hey franky, could you please explain to me how to punish someone without softforking (or hardforking)? Not that I agree with it, but I simply want to know how to impose such a policy to a miner. The way I see it is: the network is peer-to-peer, the Ordinal user can send their transaction to the miner, completely bypassing everyone supporting this "fee punishment policy".
i thought you left!!.. dang it. i was hoping to see the average IQ of the forum would rise in your absence
(dont came back just to play dumb now.. try to actually make an effort this time, now that you returned. start a new chapter of your life, be different than you were before. make an effort this time.. please dont just sound like an echo of a certain person, try better)as for how to implement it.. its easy..
the same way everyone sees legacy pays more then segwit.. by CODING IT!!!
firstly. you dont apply it to miners.. ASICS do not select transactions, nor are asics using nodes..
you apply it to node, knowing POOLS use an node as a backbone of transaction selection
also it can be enforced by mandating POOLS comply by blackmailing them that their blocks will get rejected if they dont comply.. you know exactly how that happened before. so its not a precedent that goes against your morals
there are many ways to code it.. consensus enforced or just policy followed
a. consensus enforced:
have a fee formulae that transactions using certain opcodes pay a certain threshold. and if transactions are not in the threshold then the block can be rejected, thus making pools ensure they put certain complying transactions into a block, thus enforcing transactors wanting to use certain opcodes pay the premium to get included
b. just policy followed
heck it doesnt need to be enforced by being a consensus rule. simply knowing majority use core as the backbone of the network where pools API call their transaction selections from a core node. just having it as "policy" seems to have shown compliance..much like how legacy transactions are seen to be paying more then segwit without any consensus enforcement
but like i said code is great. anything can be coded, so its not impossible. it just needs core dev politics to want to add it
as for the fee formulae
the options are limitless
EG
if opcode used, the formulae could be:
(144/utxo age)*100
meaning
a 1 confirm spam respend using certain opcode starts 14400 higher then a normal transaction
meanwhile regular bitcoiners using regular opcodes pay the regular rate
..
thats the beauty of code. devs can code any rules and policy they like.