Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E82A340A for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 12:50:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-it0-f41.google.com (mail-it0-f41.google.com [209.85.214.41]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73836433 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 12:50:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f41.google.com with SMTP id e134so1929144ite.3 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 05:50:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=r+mBWK7utey7l0pMwjk157lZbsu2qHGdPJ90GDPvX+Y=; b=LuhLP4vxFhcg9WqeNua6UXB6czyL3KZBsvsXnlxIHfrDTsHBX73Jc4KPCEvvUzQdbe B9wtTVDpcDCeArariGK61/BVYdTi+uiJwIbIYEAQHar9nBkGT4LIQiWCoweyC26cDi/N KajGpneJDaqzR/oOmSEv8DnPRIDZRGWmSP1q0BzV7+5FhdiC/iKCK5vEdzXej7A2k+lp HdVuFZUCI05r/5Tiwc/kmx1JEZ2Q0EKue9BKfwJfciFFjA5BVRa4UQa4a3OyA62ZzNsq ygbRV5n0I3h/uwbxoVi1fx5SXmfNgTe+2V2LyZtUdA+WLKZ2XESrz0xjs8g4T57N6IT/ r3tg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=r+mBWK7utey7l0pMwjk157lZbsu2qHGdPJ90GDPvX+Y=; b=WZEB1P1DT1sq31vQnOxPXLUSxLyqFqAJIq5YpnQuaNyhLeljBfrXxcXdFo7n6kf8MD l50gzSQ1txYTtvgYbzYwwubYO/p0ZQcvBG6AQMr5JAP41q5Q2x+BKrggsu1r/Oj/LjN7 RcVuFEO1nI53alR7bSgIdGtUVxnA/bMqIcI3ErPklxfDXzFcpqSNtfTbT+/7aN0ZZOoi 90lv1WW/ORy5QDaDbTIRLS5Gk/xklx0epK1+Ebg2JjEPEyTcgpCte0SJyw6psRimcvqx G8NzVk79T1YML41dyvYs2R8N38tu+Xva8SrMmh+Gcxow196u5bXhL/rbZF1/TXkxMN3Y 1QTw== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaWu/zO86c4n0f3yMosuoac5A2V4GbMMSYD66zWerWv+YV0yLh0T pcXXc2csdNcNjp+yKe++SXjuuwicACYNGBHpmPdF5A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QDv0Nc+1y8KDsXU0qLIsJ8/TU4cbGv6ZgluXpg0qsXFUzGiwRJMcwxKKdRZ0/lDomii3UQfV6Ln1lXrgXV9Md0= X-Received: by 10.36.84.82 with SMTP id t79mr6837078ita.98.1506689430759; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 05:50:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Alex Morcos Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 12:50:20 +0000 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Daniele Pinna , Mark@friedenbach.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1135045e4eb473055a53784d" X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Rebatable fees & incentive-safe fee markets X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 12:50:33 -0000 --001a1135045e4eb473055a53784d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I had the same concern, or a miner could fill the remainder of the block with their own high fee paying transactions if blocks were required to be full. On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 7:55 AM Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Maybe I'm getting this wrong but wouldn't this scheme imply that a miner > is incentivized to limit the amount of transactions in a block to capture > the maximum fee of the ones included? > > As an example, mined blocks currently carry ~0.8 btc in fees right now. If > I were to submit a transaction paying 1 btc in maximal money fees, then the > miner would be incentivized to include my transaction alone to avoid that > lower fee paying transactions reduce the amount of fees he can earn from my > transaction alone. This would mean that I could literally clog the network > by paying 1btc every ten minutes. > > Am I missing something? > > Daniele > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --001a1135045e4eb473055a53784d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I had the same concern, or a miner could fill the re= mainder of the block with their own high fee paying transactions if blocks = were required to be full.=C2=A0

On= Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 7:55 AM Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda= tion.org> wrote:
Maybe I'm getting this wrong but wouldn't this scheme imply = that a miner is incentivized to limit the amount of transactions in a block= to capture the maximum fee of the ones included?

As an example, mined blocks currently carry ~0.8 btc in= fees right now. If I were to submit a transaction paying 1 btc in maximal = money fees, then the miner would be incentivized to include my transaction = alone to avoid that lower fee paying transactions reduce the amount of fees= he can earn from my transaction alone. This would mean that I could litera= lly clog the network by paying 1btc every ten minutes.

Am I missing something?

Daniele=C2=A0
=
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--001a1135045e4eb473055a53784d--