Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.213.182 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.213.182; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ig0-f182.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <554FC36C.80402@certimix.com>
References: <554FC36C.80402@certimix.com>
Date: Sun, 10 May 2015 21:07:43 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQL6ExHqT+po-F2b9+3Ns4woFx-VqQSdDkXRZwy47+XwA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Sergio Lerner <sergiolerner@certimix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
	<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] A way to create a fee market even without
 a block size limit (2013)
Precedence: list

On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Sergio Lerner
<sergiolerner@certimix.com> wrote:
> Can the system by gamed?

Users can pay fees or a portion of fees out of band to miner(s); this
is undetectable to the network.

It's also behavior that miners have engaged in since at least 2011 (in
two forms;  treating transactions that paid them directly via outputs
as having that much more in fees;  and taking contracts for fast
processing for identified transactions (e.g. address matching or via
an API) e.g. "I'll pay you x at the end of the month for each of my
transactions you process, you can poll this API". I'm aware of at
least two companies having had this arrangement with miners).

I think what you suggested then just further rewards this behavior as
it allows bypassing your controls.-- I suspect generally any scheme
the looks at the fee values has this property.