📅 Original date posted:2022-07-11
📝 Original message:On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 2:53 PM Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
>
> The only type of fee-smoothing scheme that is feasible is to smooth an
> entirely
> separate category of fees that are made mandatory. For example, you could
> achieve the economic impact of inflation by having a fixed value*time
> based fee
> that goes to timelocked anyone-can-spend outputs in the coinbase to push
> the
> fee forward to other miners.
>
I'm not sure what the implications would be of charging coins for moving
based on their value times how long since they last moved would be (I
*think* that's what you're suggesting). It isn't obviously bad, but feels
weird to me.
That said, a scheme which would work would be to have a fixed minimum fee
of satoshis/vbyte which is required to be repaid out by the miner into a
pool and they get back a fixed fraction of what was in that pool. The pool
could simply be a rolling coin which keeps the balance. That's still a bit
ugly but doesn't lessen block size significantly, is fairly coherent, and
is a soft fork. It's the best emergency measure I'm aware of.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220711/519eb7bd/attachment.html>;
Bram Cohen [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ld…t8ur6
2023-06-07 23:11:43
in reply to nevent1q…r0t8
Author Public Key
npub1ldcq03p2qe58u0xnlwa35wchjuhz49y6ueu5ghmtjetez9xstnvsmt8ur6Published at
2023-06-07 23:11:43Event JSON
{
"id": "1b443e39d99b2b1770011913cf631995e070f0d0f38baf712effd63680e35b2d",
"pubkey": "fb7007c42a06687e3cd3fbbb1a3b17972e2a949ae679445f6b96579114d05cd9",
"created_at": 1686179503,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"7243614b5a040fbb87601bd8f41b59830667774e947157f62a858774b716e8e6",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"5e5e7e78cdb5cdb71acdea6e2ac96103ba1ae942db3ecc64324fa379fbd7ea95",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-07-11\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 2:53 PM Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e\n\u003e The only type of fee-smoothing scheme that is feasible is to smooth an\n\u003e entirely\n\u003e separate category of fees that are made mandatory. For example, you could\n\u003e achieve the economic impact of inflation by having a fixed value*time\n\u003e based fee\n\u003e that goes to timelocked anyone-can-spend outputs in the coinbase to push\n\u003e the\n\u003e fee forward to other miners.\n\u003e\n\nI'm not sure what the implications would be of charging coins for moving\nbased on their value times how long since they last moved would be (I\n*think* that's what you're suggesting). It isn't obviously bad, but feels\nweird to me.\n\nThat said, a scheme which would work would be to have a fixed minimum fee\nof satoshis/vbyte which is required to be repaid out by the miner into a\npool and they get back a fixed fraction of what was in that pool. The pool\ncould simply be a rolling coin which keeps the balance. That's still a bit\nugly but doesn't lessen block size significantly, is fairly coherent, and\nis a soft fork. It's the best emergency measure I'm aware of.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220711/519eb7bd/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "71bd51b880bf278cf79211e8a56394137333c9ea9f19a48cd3eb9a6400321f99fe13b3391f256a3075221952ceb3c561f21f4387376758dd534d31c4b5787bd7"
}