📅 Original date posted:2015-06-11
📝 Original message:On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 02:00:27PM -0600, Nathan Wilcox wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Aaron Voisine <voisine at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > It could be done by agreeing on a data format and encoding it in an
> > > op_return output in the coinbase transaction. If it catches on it could
> > > later be enforced with a soft fork.
> > >
> > >
> > Sounds plausible, except SPV protocols would need to include this
> coinbase
> > txn if it's going to help SPV clients. (Until a softfork is activated,
> SPV
> > clients should not rely on this encoding, since until that time the
> results
> > can be fabricated by individual miners.)
>
> Fee stats can always be fabricated by individual miners because fees can
> be paid out-of-band.
>
>
This is a point I hadn't considered carefully before. I don't understand
the marketplace here or why miners would want to move fees outside of
explicit inband fees. Implicit in this proposal is that the statistics only
cover in-band data, because that's the scope of consensus rules, and thus
the proposal is only as useful as the information of in-band fees is useful.
I've also noticed a detracting technical argument given a particular
tradeoff:
A Header-PoW-verifying client could still be given all transactions in a
recent block, from which it can see the in-band fees directly. The
trade-off is the size of those transactions versus the need to alter any
consensus rules or do soft forks.
Notice how this trade-off's costs change with maximum block size.
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 00000000000000001245bd2f5c99379ee76836227ded9c08324894faabc0d27f
>
--
Nathan Wilcox
Least Authoritarian
email: nathan at leastauthority.com
twitter: @least_nathan
PGP: 11169993 / AAAC 5675 E3F7 514C 67ED E9C9 3BFE 5263 1116 9993
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150611/ae77eddb/attachment.html>;
Nathan Wilcox [ARCHIVE] /
npub12g…xyand
2023-06-07 15:37:17
in reply to nevent1q…2ksd
Author Public Key
npub12g7q65me6tf93kfd4d0k8ffdvz52d56vumg3l8rqc0mykfrj02hs8xyandPublished at
2023-06-07 15:37:17Event JSON
{
"id": "f513bfcdc57612162e436a803e35eb1ea60358838e3722b0a06e373685577ac5",
"pubkey": "523c0d5379d2d258d92dab5f63a52d60a8a6d34ce6d11f9c60c3f64b24727aaf",
"created_at": 1686152237,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"e5c5b327043fce5d06c04d5d47b9e1bc42816638599cdc94c838afd2a20dc49c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"b204bfa22a9c4ae775278f2b738ed40bd46f7f25f1fce4a961b40b1036989de9",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-11\n📝 Original message:On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 02:00:27PM -0600, Nathan Wilcox wrote:\n\u003e \u003e On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Aaron Voisine \u003cvoisine at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e It could be done by agreeing on a data format and encoding it in an\n\u003e \u003e \u003e op_return output in the coinbase transaction. If it catches on it could\n\u003e \u003e \u003e later be enforced with a soft fork.\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Sounds plausible, except SPV protocols would need to include this\n\u003e coinbase\n\u003e \u003e txn if it's going to help SPV clients. (Until a softfork is activated,\n\u003e SPV\n\u003e \u003e clients should not rely on this encoding, since until that time the\n\u003e results\n\u003e \u003e can be fabricated by individual miners.)\n\u003e\n\u003e Fee stats can always be fabricated by individual miners because fees can\n\u003e be paid out-of-band.\n\u003e\n\u003e\nThis is a point I hadn't considered carefully before. I don't understand\nthe marketplace here or why miners would want to move fees outside of\nexplicit inband fees. Implicit in this proposal is that the statistics only\ncover in-band data, because that's the scope of consensus rules, and thus\nthe proposal is only as useful as the information of in-band fees is useful.\n\nI've also noticed a detracting technical argument given a particular\ntradeoff:\n\nA Header-PoW-verifying client could still be given all transactions in a\nrecent block, from which it can see the in-band fees directly. The\ntrade-off is the size of those transactions versus the need to alter any\nconsensus rules or do soft forks.\n\nNotice how this trade-off's costs change with maximum block size.\n\n\n\n\n\u003e --\n\u003e 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n\u003e 00000000000000001245bd2f5c99379ee76836227ded9c08324894faabc0d27f\n\u003e\n\n\n\n-- \nNathan Wilcox\nLeast Authoritarian\n\nemail: nathan at leastauthority.com\ntwitter: @least_nathan\nPGP: 11169993 / AAAC 5675 E3F7 514C 67ED E9C9 3BFE 5263 1116 9993\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150611/ae77eddb/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "30af0d6680a441751d307d9bfc97b4c3dc0afe7536ddd69793aebe7bfe89d8de9d21272a1c202fc63ba503f7f7c32c30ab4d5e84283a5658a4feb68c1e32fb1c"
}