Addressing the possibility of profitable fee manipulation attacks

The discussion emphasizes the limitations in current fee-burning solutions, stating they can be circumvented through alternative transaction arrangements. The inability to effectively enforce fee-burning as a means to incentivize miners highlights a critical gap in the current system. Additionally, the author suggests that Replace-by-Fee (RBF) should be utilized more extensively due to its potential benefits over Child-Pays-For-Parent (CPFP), which is described as inefficient and prone to inaccuracies in transaction fee estimation.

Further criticism is directed towards BitPay, which is labeled as an ineffective payment processor, and there's speculation about its motives possibly being linked to advocating for larger block sizes within blockchain networks. The correspondence also sheds light on the alleged practices of mining pools that may flood the network, thereby increasing transaction fees. It's noted that certain mining pools, like Ocean, that filter out transactions with fees could inadvertently be aiding such strategies by decreasing the associated costs of these activities.

For a deeper exploration of these issues, the author provides a link to their website, which can be accessed at https://petertodd.org. Questions, comments, or further discussion can be directed to the author via email at 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org, removing the last character for the correct email address.