asciilifeform: ben_vulpes: also recall the 'tx replacement' thread. classical btc has uncorrectable birth defects.

asciilifeform: a pressed-blockchain aluminum disk set would help to cool the enthusiasm of idiots pushing for 'pruning', 'tx replacement', whichever lunacies crafted for 'let's make'em forget history'

asciilifeform: i propose a declaration of 'tx replacement is an attack against sane bitcoin and whoever does it, is the forker, and not us, who thereafter ban it in trb and subsequent proggies.'

asciilifeform: tx replacement , and the mere contemplation of 'pruning', are a carefully crafted enemy rot weapon.

asciilifeform: it worx internally (in e.g., nqb) but the mere fact of tx replacement idiocy being supported in shitoshi's turd, means that a tx is not, in principle, self-contained, can mean entirely different movement if meanwhile its txid got recycled

asciilifeform: theoretically trb & prb permit 'tx replacement' idiocy

asciilifeform: also it is not clear to me that trb ever... worked, in the customary sense of the word. what, for instance, happens if you actually carry out the -- entirely legal per all known btctrons -- replacement of a ~spent~ coinbase tx ?

asciilifeform: and that replacement of 'spent' tx is even permitted still.

asciilifeform: but, upstack, conundrum is, if some of the oldtx depend on prevblock in a way that is known immediately when said block was mined -- it gives a head start to plagiarists ( per earlier observation -- folx who take a freshly-mined block and try to make ~replacement~ for it with higher PoW.) but if they are ~not~ immediately known, and depend in any way on waltzeable Z, then 'haha i'll waltz until it falls in my 10%'.