1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1U9Ptk-0004aA-Ai
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 24 Feb 2013 00:57:00 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.215.48 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.215.48; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-la0-f48.google.com;
Received: from mail-la0-f48.google.com ([209.85.215.48])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1U9Ptg-0002vu-KY
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 24 Feb 2013 00:56:57 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f48.google.com with SMTP id fq13so1645286lab.21
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 23 Feb 2013 16:56:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.112.138 with SMTP id iq10mr5769477lab.55.1361667408268;
Sat, 23 Feb 2013 16:56:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.96.164 with HTTP; Sat, 23 Feb 2013 16:56:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20130224010651.GA22686@savin>
References: <20130224010651.GA22686@savin>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 16:56:48 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSHi3Ms17JSkxirE5RkH4BEg6GP5SKLuCj6c39k0OQnhg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1U9Ptg-0002vu-KY
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] How small blocks make delibrate orphan
mining costly
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 00:57:00 -0000
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> In the low-subsidy future fees will be the main source of income for
> miners. Thus in some circumstances large miners may even have a reason
> to delibrately try to mine a block that would orphan the current best
> block. A simple example would be what would happen if a 1000BTC fee tx
> was created, but more realistic examples would be just due to a large
> number of tx's with decent fees.
It's come up a number of times in the past that when there is no
subsidy we might expect slow convergence as miners try to orphan each
other instead in order to fee snipe. What Peter pointed out here
that I had not previously considered and find interesting is was that
if there is a sufficient backlog (or nlocktime immature) of
transactions with fees beyond the maximum block size the incentive to
orphan blocks to take their fees is greatly reduced or eliminated.
|
