1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
|
Return-Path: <bram@bittorrent.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E3F495D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 31 Mar 2017 20:57:06 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f169.google.com (mail-io0-f169.google.com
[209.85.223.169])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22EBB161
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 31 Mar 2017 20:57:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-io0-f169.google.com with SMTP id z13so47252454iof.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 31 Mar 2017 13:57:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=bittorrent-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=Q7KCafqx5QGPshOioFRuL3RKws3BWBfe/lWCrCRW5CM=;
b=0KjgRjaz3GqcOpIp1qiK1rWXlF0amgE72aUT1OBHtixRGnCNa55KC2GG+FTTKoVN2p
OSc95S53qVXdHU8gekSVAdX6ert1LBH9vaBN0uN5HrfbMqzYmNZintf2+XlkLISXD0NJ
0jR6hFSWjEAUoJIc+Uid4onxwWZBMeo7vvX8fRAfQfL98zbcg0mDcJthRgHzpJYwwXiQ
tb6G0SPFkJGCriJSIPv1SKUwvGtRVvaUfhRVALd2UubCHxB7+eI1TBxx3F5EDg6b1rJP
tU59mqn+CdFEpUZZ1nT2VZA2Ut0oGVpBWmxcnfY7oJiUDwNJWv1YRB0SB1nL9Qw2kiIr
8y5w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to;
bh=Q7KCafqx5QGPshOioFRuL3RKws3BWBfe/lWCrCRW5CM=;
b=dxqOYuNSV3CbRj5rMbwijTnkYPw93KUi4e848EM0F0XpT2+xNGBWVEQVEI4LZAxafH
9WKG774MbP1bEmJMah5RR3mqsdKM7MQX0RsvEH2E1N78+7xnSW3p5D8ZaFNijBAd2Rlo
F1/N1cz9lJKDgqRsrKULkaNdm8TioJRod2qz/mRQ4fmt62t7qY8it9RiT824ExVEpybg
QWhWoVyqWyyrgEbPcYVtbKFonw/zVW10NwULMx6ab0ukFRmE0orSMsmdIHIHGg2mvNwz
RBup5RIVksJR7YBtYG4aYMVXuXJPT8PDhSkVszc2RelOdSfK3mQy8EgtS8JD2eou2zig
SVtw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0qHvoymocWJI/pugcloiSH8JNvIFBhV3GlNQRZ0mnxQw1B7Y/XqABNsOaCPr4F9RIo5HkTsBFsQcP0xv5s
X-Received: by 10.107.50.206 with SMTP id y197mr5674804ioy.214.1490993824578;
Fri, 31 Mar 2017 13:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.36.184.70 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 13:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
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
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Refund Excesss Fee Hard Fork Proposal
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: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 20:57:06 -0000
--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"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_=
blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></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't want to modify some o=
f the outputs and don'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--
|
