Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 873BAF5D for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 21:22:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f43.google.com (mail-vk0-f43.google.com [209.85.213.43]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 252CF1CE for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 21:22:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f43.google.com with SMTP id a63so5463091vkg.6 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 13:22:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=w2UlYkmKZgkzdwJYGu9q03du2OKPqzCBpQSSSntylyo=; b=NU4EsZOYZMKzvb8W8hog2UasuS/2o+m/PHOyNXIEyPkhwF7XXGtteMkUm0AV1aTiPP DOk2rEPmisymcBOTL/DzHD/PcqOsS1xNNYRWuPv4Yfy6WVM+gKj74F7bMFvffkVLUD9U khn1FKyMD9BscPp5gow8Ygc2tmA7w/L6M7nBMqvXbEFLUeEkJz+kvgtug044kw1Uyq3f Xm8pZUfa0tRTF4AnTCB3Ks+nH/l2U9P5VpuK84PDqzG1FXxo883u3goTmu+3xUHfmKZI a8Rs8XzjNbtou2jD4x+WUXnEgyy59rDmPsS73lcrvVWrDDhSQvN1SLFHtjKxWqzLh+s5 75Pw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=w2UlYkmKZgkzdwJYGu9q03du2OKPqzCBpQSSSntylyo=; b=qXNGWldhs0eO2qAosM5gTieFk1tCidsZ6V8c4d3FejVm/0hBkM4oaHgTeF3NQtOm1E eFXli1Q02tjp/w8kmcW3ebuJvhDh2oBDKkS58OfBMwhJtUYHtmacB+zn/U3K1Q+jwVBX Xa7gAXs/MFoTNGxf7PW0DAZFPVb17Jd4oZSxIeUsIhgeNQmVtUXzZqTiyVXb670n2Mm1 fqLVN7N/1SEVWJS18rSOEi4cfKy0RLyHv9Qp+wW6qN7YjvGxvQN7jq5gcNE8aJSFaBo4 wWMR9EsbrkBcWS60lPrh9+cFp75/UVsCyukKUt+NmXI67h5NaEvI9sxZIZ/xHCmAbRUX NhKA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytfYxOnZy5JSGFaU/EFnNe8lrKmun6COsunJ7jJ4apXIKdEaJ/xO AWykBLuRRCKQ9ORH9fwRRYHk/umI8IX78TK06Xg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x227GJWI9XDeuDiUYKj5WTfo3YoytVmmlQCuq0oQDq1bSub/RocbIEX3/3ZAd7rINlUmqweLuZlEUbNYGkaw0C7M= X-Received: by 10.31.149.195 with SMTP id x186mr19162004vkd.14.1517260946204; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 13:22:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com Received: by 10.103.78.155 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 13:22:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <261a9388-64fe-a664-85f0-4b0e8ca9ec1e@voskuil.org> References: <261a9388-64fe-a664-85f0-4b0e8ca9ec1e@voskuil.org> From: Gregory Maxwell Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 21:22:25 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: q9kSnYY-fYcBoGf30sfP9gtaxc0 Message-ID: To: Eric Voskuil , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: rewarding fees to next block miner X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 21:22:27 -0000 On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:49 AM, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I'm not sure who cooked up this myth about miners gaining advantage over > those who buy block space by mining empty space, rejecting higher-fee > transactions, and/or mining "recovery" transactions, but the idea is > complete nonsense. I agree. Steel-manning it, I guess I could argue that empty blocks are slightly more conspicuous and might invite retaliation especially given the high levels of mining centralization creates retaliation exposure. ... but dummy transactions are hardly less conspicuous, many nodes log now when blocks show up containing txn that they've never seen before. Moreover, inexplicably underfilled blocks are produced (e.g. by bitmain's antpool) and no retaliation seems to be forthcoming.