diff options
| author | Stian Ellingsen <stian@plaimi.net> | 2017-03-27 19:50:12 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2017-03-27 17:58:17 +0000 |
| commit | 5eeceab41f2c5adff08e1142816fb85f99168f50 (patch) | |
| tree | 789f8f2bfc2104c228040fc7671ac5c0f86100db | |
| parent | b0625d670a65d9b5871f155e925c832a643b7dcd (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-5eeceab41f2c5adff08e1142816fb85f99168f50.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-5eeceab41f2c5adff08e1142816fb85f99168f50.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Encouraging good miners
| -rw-r--r-- | 0e/0eed0c33c6f61d5f1b2b20ad97288bca015fbd | 83 |
1 files changed, 83 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/0e/0eed0c33c6f61d5f1b2b20ad97288bca015fbd b/0e/0eed0c33c6f61d5f1b2b20ad97288bca015fbd new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e72d96dc1 --- /dev/null +++ b/0e/0eed0c33c6f61d5f1b2b20ad97288bca015fbd @@ -0,0 +1,83 @@ +Return-Path: <stian@plaimi.net> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6D69AB6 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:58:17 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: delayed 00:08:00 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from chap.plaimi.net (chap.plaimi.net [178.209.51.99]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50E2A191 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:58:17 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by gent.plaimi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 27A37124515; + Mon, 27 Mar 2017 19:50:15 +0200 (CEST) +To: Btc Ideas <btcideas@protonmail.com>, + Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +References: <uQBxE-Qbd-osime4uulMZZHdF_D7usA2EKsPjkTyXCHM0OakN2Wdoeriyrc73yWp5c5ULQNkIsRXAM64cCom7ecPvdwmatOyc9Kh1sTDpl4=@protonmail.com> +From: Stian Ellingsen <stian@plaimi.net> +Message-ID: <c0d518f4-ffb5-704b-02ee-d9587415571c@plaimi.net> +Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 19:50:12 +0200 +User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 + Thunderbird/45.8.0 +MIME-Version: 1.0 +In-Reply-To: <uQBxE-Qbd-osime4uulMZZHdF_D7usA2EKsPjkTyXCHM0OakN2Wdoeriyrc73yWp5c5ULQNkIsRXAM64cCom7ecPvdwmatOyc9Kh1sTDpl4=@protonmail.com> +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD + autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.org +X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:31:55 +0000 +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Encouraging good miners +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:58:18 -0000 + +On 27/03/17 18:12, Btc Ideas via bitcoin-dev wrote: + +> Add a preference for mined blocks to be the one with more +> transactions. This comes into play when 2 blocks of the same height +> are found. The first good block mined would be orphaned if it had +> less transactions than another. Optionally, have this rule apply to +> the current block and the previous one. + +This would encourage miners to make their own tiny junk transactions +to fill up their blocks, perhaps leaving larger, more space-efficient +transactions in the mempool. + +> This increases incentive for full blocks because a miner thinking +> the faster propagation of a smaller block will win him the reward, +> but that would no longer be a good assumption. + +> I read some miners could attack a chain by mining small or empty +> blocks. This makes that a little more difficult, but they can still +> attack the chain many ways. + +"Good" miners should probably build upon the block with a set of +transactions more similar to what they themselves would include based +on their mempool at the time. However, miners don't have an incentive +to do so today. Instead, they may be better off building upon the +block that leaves the most valuable transactions in the mempool, +e.g. a small or empty block, and maybe leave some valuable +transactions in the mempool for the next miner.[1] This issue could +possibly be addressed by a soft-fork that requires miners to pay a +portion of their fees to future miners. + +[1] +https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2016/10/21/bitcoin-is-unstable-without-the-= +block-reward/ + +--=20 +Stian + + + |