Oddbean

This was something Steve pointed out to me that I found super interesting. On chain fees, DENOMINATED IN SATS, are actually extremely consistent across time. And by the same measure are right now the lowest in 12 years... kinda crazy to think about with all the insanity around discussion of fees and how often its THE talking point when 99% of the rhetoric around it literally has nothing to do with the simple facts of the network and what we have seen. nostr:note1e42r4d5utmpga4z5dx7u2qmq2884ewtw72qfhzgmgxtn9at6p32sd468nr

There is not a low fee security problem. The systems is elegantly Responsively Resistant. Waiting for an *attack* Fees will spike in response to degens/spammers/scammers AND TO *attacks* from those censoring transactions. The sudden lucrative fees incentivize more mining. The attackers *mostly* have to pay in miners in SATS and they know this. Gets too costly. *attackers* run out of resources. Fees fall back to baseline. Like the toughest kid in the schoolyard. Rarely has to fight. Or a massive militarized border that never fires a shot.

I've not made a claim one way or the other, I'm just pointing out a simple thing we can observe about it's history. I didn't even bring up a security budget issue in the positive or the negative. That said, the point you make is an interesting way to think about it.

💯 Was just taking the opportunity to communicate how we should think about security - IMHO. It took me a long time to get here. It’s essentially Pierre Richard view, that I now feel like I grok. One problem with my take is those censoring will not in general be paying fees to censor, they will use other forces/resources. But the way around the *censorer* ?sp? is to pay more fees in SATs or pay out of bounds. Either way money flows to the miners. Theoretically anyone can mine, and if you can make a profit, people will plug-in. 🤝