MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1dvInLVM9fq2GjQVacau8gDyslYCCx_6dm2Sbi1IiIyPaXy1C8-Ip3CSICVal_VO_FKzVaQCfRVUImQmKuNuNXfKzqhnwAM1Cw_lyQVL8ew=@protonmail.com>
References: <1dvInLVM9fq2GjQVacau8gDyslYCCx_6dm2Sbi1IiIyPaXy1C8-Ip3CSICVal_VO_FKzVaQCfRVUImQmKuNuNXfKzqhnwAM1Cw_lyQVL8ew=@protonmail.com>
From: Bram Cohen <bram@bittorrent.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 13:57:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+KqGkoSQEE-MzC8ptbFxoypKKFpMMK8XQXdvkgkJghfP7sy4Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: praxeology_guy <praxeology_guy@protonmail.com>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1144795446d33a054c0d0d40
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Refund Excesss Fee Hard Fork Proposal
Precedence: list

--001a1144795446d33a054c0d0d40
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 1:29 PM, praxeology_guy via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

>
> Change the fee policy to cause all fee/byte in a block to be reduced to
> the lowest included fee/byte. Change transactions to specify how/which
> outputs get what portions of [(TX_fee/TX_length - LIFB)*TX_length].
> Transactions of course could still offer the remainder to the miner if they
> don't want to modify some of the outputs and don't want to reveal their
> change output.
>

That would have the unfortunate effect of incentivizing miners to not
completely fill blocks, because low fee marginal transactions could cost
them money.

An alternate approach would be to incentivize miners to follow transaction
fees more by reducing mining rewards, which could be done by soft forking
in a requirement that a chunk of all mining rewards be sent to an
unspendable address.

--001a1144795446d33a054c0d0d40
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On F=
ri, Mar 31, 2017 at 1:29 PM, praxeology_guy via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"lt=
r">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_=
blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><bloc=
kquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #cc=
c solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br></div><div><div>Change the fee policy to=
 cause all fee/byte in a block to be reduced to the lowest included fee/byt=
e. Change transactions to specify how/which outputs get what portions of [(=
TX_fee/TX_length - LIFB)*TX_length].=C2=A0 Transactions of course could sti=
ll offer the remainder to the miner if they don&#39;t want to modify some o=
f the outputs and don&#39;t want to reveal their change output.<br></div></=
div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That would have the unfortunate effect=
 of incentivizing miners to not completely fill blocks, because low fee mar=
ginal transactions could cost them money.</div><div><br></div><div>An alter=
nate approach would be to incentivize miners to follow transaction fees mor=
e by reducing mining rewards, which could be done by soft forking in a requ=
irement that a chunk of all mining rewards be sent to an unspendable addres=
s.</div><div><br></div></div></div></div>

--001a1144795446d33a054c0d0d40--