Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VZM8x-0007Bf-M5 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:44:11 +0000 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; Received: from outmail149095.authsmtp.com ([62.13.149.95]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1VZM8w-0002FE-DK for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:44:11 +0000 Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235]) by punt7.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id r9OEi49t036093; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:44:04 +0100 (BST) Received: from savin (76-10-178-109.dsl.teksavvy.com [76.10.178.109]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id r9OEhwtk001932 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:44:01 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:43:58 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: Mike Hearn Message-ID: <20131024144358.GA17142@savin> References: <20131024143043.GA12658@savin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2fHTh5uZTiUOsy+g" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Server-Quench: b8f65cd7-3cba-11e3-b802-002590a15da7 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aAdMdAYUF1YAAgsB AmUbWlFeVFl7WWI7 bAxPbAVDY01GQQRq WVdMSlVNFUsqCGN0 XllaCRlydgxFejB5 YEJrECJTCkJ/JhJ6 X00HRzwbZGY1a31N WEBaagNUcgZDfk5E bwQuUz1vNG8XDQg5 AwQ0PjZ0MThBJSBS WgQAK04nCWMCHT86 SFgMEDhnEFYZRiA6 Mx0hLBYWEVoNP19a X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 76.10.178.109/587 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 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] -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Headers-End: 1VZM8w-0002FE-DK Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:44:11 -0000 --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 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) iQGrBAEBCACVBQJSaTItXhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDQ5YzUxNjIwZTM4NzdmNmVmZWI1ZGFkOTkyOWY5YmJlOTU0 NTMyZThlNjUyNjRmNGQvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0 ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQJIFAPaXwkfs7aQgAoMH25x8lvRk7cqGDmNA7uBC3 TqnjiJbSF7ey7eKqsshfB3Vx4RqrMC60i0rFxwktVkwxfp0ofGao0tvBkhLbMR3L NpUpUp6RgpSqCyZC8r0iQXBrbbIc8v23NQ66v1OcqZSWwvUw/FkeKDH6j/LcSeMe ChVHxEJRjFUkE69A38I/s6lebNnFU9eQjKeXiuhysx0pl7eK2SrjE/fNuMBi/kCz V4z2vJFAgbgMwIGO7EM/Osof0L+zmuvCbXELDSNghbvz1SOzvhHH9Z0z17y2FP0G ByJs6Y2vAzGHz/ukdrz6c4ktOAJq1URv/2v4RYy7UWbx9kTeS6Ns8gPprlNEeQ== =odRH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --2fHTh5uZTiUOsy+g--