Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1VZM3M-0002VH-IJ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:38:24 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.173 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.173; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f173.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f173.google.com ([209.85.214.173]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VZM3K-0006PX-GZ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:38:24 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f173.google.com with SMTP id gq1so2388018obb.18 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 07:38:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.78.227 with SMTP id e3mr2416293oex.5.1382625497058; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 07:38:17 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.156.42 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 07:38:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20131024143043.GA12658@savin> References: <20131024143043.GA12658@savin> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:38:16 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: bmDHLaH0sEmyEvX5RPYaZTvlPCE Message-ID: <CANEZrP100Lg_1LcFMKx1yWrGTSFb5GZmLmXNbZjPGaiEgOeuwA@mail.gmail.com> From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0111bca49c18a904e97d95a1 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: petertodd.org] 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1VZM3K-0006PX-GZ Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Making fee estimation better X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:38:24 -0000 --089e0111bca49c18a904e97d95a1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote: > Quick thought on how to make blockchain-based fee estimates work better > in the context of out-of-band mining contracts: have miners advertise in > their coinbase's what fees were actually paid, as opposed to appear to > have been paid. This is interesting, but I suppose some miners may have business models that can't be easily summed up as a "fee" - like all-you-can-eat deals with certain providers, or preference to certain kinds of transactions etc. For the concern that estimation might force fees down too far if miners include private transactions, I thought the estimates were calculated only on broadcast transactions, so transactions that just appear in a block won't ever influence the estimate? --089e0111bca49c18a904e97d95a1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr">On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Peter Todd <span dir=3D"l= tr"><<a href=3D"mailto:pete@petertodd.org" target=3D"_blank">pete@petert= odd.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"g= mail_quote"> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p= x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Quick thought on how to make blockchain-base= d fee estimates work better<br> in the context of out-of-band mining contracts: have miners advertise in<br= > their coinbase's what fees were actually paid, as opposed to appear to<= br> have been paid.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is interesting, but I = suppose some miners may have business models that can't be easily summe= d up as a "fee" - like all-you-can-eat deals with certain provide= rs, or preference to certain kinds of transactions etc.</div> <div><br></div><div>For the concern that estimation might force fees down t= oo far if miners include private transactions, I thought the estimates were= calculated only on broadcast transactions, so transactions that just appea= r in a block won't ever influence the estimate?=C2=A0</div> </div></div></div> --089e0111bca49c18a904e97d95a1--