Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.175; envelope-from=rebroad@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-we0-f175.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rebroad@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <4FC0C401.1040600@justmoon.de>
References: <CA+8xBpdBe4yR6xkCODL6JQ41Gyx9eWcGGGvcQVt7DCmaEnAhbg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANdZDc7+_xBH0DhujnXbh7gVB603qMQdQ7yOO5qq3HEfsJ2Lpw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4FC0C401.1040600@justmoon.de>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 17:30:52 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFBxzADDbBZ94ckDHEBccNbPQzfW7NWYfC4AibJZYk654bQ87A@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Rebroad (sourceforge)" <rebroad+sourceforge.net@gmail.com>
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
	<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d77c4cae6ac704c12f5be3
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Punishing empty blocks?
Precedence: list

--0016e6d77c4cae6ac704c12f5be3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I'd like to garner consensus on whether anyone else thinks it desirable to
have a flag option for bitcoin to punish blocks for not including
transactions. I notice there are already pro-miner options, such as the
restricting the relaying of free transactions, and so including an option
to restrict relaying of blocks from "stingy" miners to balance against the
current bias, so that the default bitcoin client can be run as much
pro-miner as pro-non-miner.

On Monday, May 28, 2012, rebroad@gmail.com wrote:

> What i think this thread reveals is whether a bitcoin client is pro-miner
> or pro-non-miner. What i think is needed is a fork where one benefits
> miners (e.g. Limits relaying of free transactions, as has been added to the
> current default client), and one that benefits non-miners (e.g. Limits
> relaying of blocks not including free transactions). Then people can vote
> based on the client they use.
>
> It seems to me that the current main client is a pro-miner one, and
> possibly not what most people would vote for if they were given an easier
> choice.

--0016e6d77c4cae6ac704c12f5be3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I&#39;d like to garner consensus on whether anyone else thinks it desirable=
 to have a flag option for bitcoin to punish blocks for not including trans=
actions. I notice there are already pro-miner options, such as the restrict=
ing the relaying of free transactions, and so including an option to restri=
ct relaying of blocks from &quot;stingy&quot; miners to balance against the=
 current bias, so that the default bitcoin client can be run as much pro-mi=
ner as pro-non-miner.<br>
<br>On Monday, May 28, 2012, <a href=3D"mailto:rebroad@gmail.com">rebroad@g=
mail.com</a>=A0wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:=
0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);=
border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
What i think this thread reveals is whether a bitcoin client is pro-miner o=
r pro-non-miner. What i think is needed is a fork where one benefits miners=
 (e.g. Limits relaying of free transactions, as has been added to the curre=
nt default client), and one that benefits non-miners (e.g. Limits relaying =
of blocks not including free transactions). Then people can vote based on t=
he client they use.<br>
<br>It seems to me that the current main client is a pro-miner one, and pos=
sibly not what most people would vote for if they were given an easier choi=
ce.</blockquote>

--0016e6d77c4cae6ac704c12f5be3--