Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.149.95 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.149.95; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail149095.authsmtp.com; 
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:43:58 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Message-ID: <20131024144358.GA17142@savin>
References: <20131024143043.GA12658@savin>
	<CANEZrP100Lg_1LcFMKx1yWrGTSFb5GZmLmXNbZjPGaiEgOeuwA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2fHTh5uZTiUOsy+g"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP100Lg_1LcFMKx1yWrGTSFb5GZmLmXNbZjPGaiEgOeuwA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Making fee estimation better
Precedence: list


--2fHTh5uZTiUOsy+g
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 04:38:16PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
>=20
> > 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.
>=20
>=20
> 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 wi=
th
> certain providers, or preference to certain kinds of transactions etc.

For sure, although *usually* all kinds of odd-ball forms of compensation
can be turned into a dollar figure. :)

> 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?

The thing is if a miner is mining a transaction, even in exchange for a
out-of-band fee if they succeed, they probably still have an incentive
to a: ask the sender to include enough of a fee that it propagates, and
b: broadcast it themselves to make sure it's in other nodes signature
caches so their blocks propagate fast. (esp. with by-txid-only relaying)

Anyway, in what circumstance would a customer want an exclusive contract
with a miner?

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000bf7bcf3da1b3b228216b72fefccbed84becaaba6fcc6aff2

--2fHTh5uZTiUOsy+g
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
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==
=odRH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--2fHTh5uZTiUOsy+g--