📅 Original date posted:2015-09-03
📝 Original message:Thanks for the link. I readily admit only having given pay-to-future-miner
a little bit of thought. Not convinced it sets a minimal tx fee in all
cases.
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 12:55 AM, <jl2012 at xbt.hk> wrote:
> Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-09-03 00:05 寫到:
>
>> Schemes proposing to pay with difficulty / hashpower to change block
>> size should be avoided. The miners incentive has always been fairly
>> straightforward - it is rational to deploy new hashpower as soon as
>> you can get it online. Introducing the concepts of (a) requiring
>> out-of-band collusion to change block size and/or (b) requiring miners
>> to have idle hashpower on hand to change block size are both
>> unrealistic and potentially corrosive. That potentially makes the
>> block size - and therefore fee market - too close, too sensitive to
>> the wild vagaries of the mining chip market.
>>
>> Pay-to-future-miner has neutral, forward looking incentives worth
>> researching.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
> Ref:
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010723.html
>
> I explained here why pay with difficulty is bad for everyone: miners and
> users, and described the use of OP_CLTV for pay-to-future-miner
>
> However, a general problem of pay-to-increase-block-size scheme is it
> indirectly sets a minimal tx fee, which could be difficult and arbitrary,
> and is against competition
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150903/28c494e3/attachment.html>;
Jeff Garzik [ARCHIVE] /
npub1kf…f3f58
2023-06-07 17:39:25
in reply to nevent1q…cut4
Author Public Key
npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58Seen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 17:39:25Event JSON
{
"id": "ab36b31f86766bf32abae080dd95d84dcc859c38d18272c0a0fcf8c65fc9b528",
"pubkey": "b25e10e25d470d9b215521b50da0dfe7a209bec7fedeb53860c3e180ffdc8c11",
"created_at": 1686159565,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"dbb4e6d7748308ee67a1d1ad1fb204aeb89db8ab4acccbd7812a3205f4f42fd9",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"9c7ed5199339b6b35924f74edb32785d2e698de657f8a57f1435230adaabd675",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b61e2e7ccbf4abd7f49715c62f4ac7a93cbdd5ead0316279c5f5fe9b18dd0aaa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-09-03\n📝 Original message:Thanks for the link. I readily admit only having given pay-to-future-miner\na little bit of thought. Not convinced it sets a minimal tx fee in all\ncases.\n\n\nOn Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 12:55 AM, \u003cjl2012 at xbt.hk\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-09-03 00:05 寫到:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Schemes proposing to pay with difficulty / hashpower to change block\n\u003e\u003e size should be avoided. The miners incentive has always been fairly\n\u003e\u003e straightforward - it is rational to deploy new hashpower as soon as\n\u003e\u003e you can get it online. Introducing the concepts of (a) requiring\n\u003e\u003e out-of-band collusion to change block size and/or (b) requiring miners\n\u003e\u003e to have idle hashpower on hand to change block size are both\n\u003e\u003e unrealistic and potentially corrosive. That potentially makes the\n\u003e\u003e block size - and therefore fee market - too close, too sensitive to\n\u003e\u003e the wild vagaries of the mining chip market.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Pay-to-future-miner has neutral, forward looking incentives worth\n\u003e\u003e researching.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Ref:\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010723.html\n\u003e\n\u003e I explained here why pay with difficulty is bad for everyone: miners and\n\u003e users, and described the use of OP_CLTV for pay-to-future-miner\n\u003e\n\u003e However, a general problem of pay-to-increase-block-size scheme is it\n\u003e indirectly sets a minimal tx fee, which could be difficult and arbitrary,\n\u003e and is against competition\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150903/28c494e3/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "b487c497e8b4b5548ead9699215dbb6faf2517e4c3b67a209e2785c909ea4127eca778f4957b8e22561cae20d2269dc70b5f9115783e38bbd7d75ffbba84a8cf"
}