📅 Original date posted:2015-07-23
📝 Original message:Quality of service as in:
> X satoshi / kb = included in block currently worked on;
> Y satoshi / kb = included in next block;
> Z satoshi / kb = included in block after that, etc.
Block count starts when transaction is first seen. Miners can set X, Y, Z.
Market develops when miners start setting different values and adding more transactions to blocks as opposed to other miners with higher settings.
It basically comes down to the miners themselves if they want a healthy fee market. If they stick to their guns, their influence on the fees will be proportional to their hashing power.
jp
> On Jul 24, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 23, 2015, at 5:22 PM, Jean-Paul Kogelman <jeanpaulkogelman at me.com> wrote:
>>
>> You are not going to get a fair fee market if your only form of enforcement is the threat of exclusion.
>>
>> A more fair fee market will develop if miners start offering quality of service, preferably at multiple tiers. At that point any interference from a block size cap will only be detrimental. In fact it will only highlight what the cap is actually for; to prevent monster blocks.
>>
>> Add better QoS tools for miners and extend the cap (when possible) and there's your fee market.
>>
>> jp
>
> Not sure what you mean by QoS here. Either your transaction is included or it isn’t. It’s not like you can upgrade to a master suite with a view or anything.
Jean-Paul Kogelman [ARCHIVE] /
npub1sa…8y304
2023-06-07 15:42:57
in reply to nevent1q…8qcw
Author Public Key
npub1sa86gng3pvs3jgyt5majwcrhn8ck5qxgy9pjqxkh79u638cd7dys28y304Published at
2023-06-07 15:42:57Event JSON
{
"id": "00338f76c0a641f2e5ebef9d4791d2acd52e14355de64fc406bc9c8a6588f03f",
"pubkey": "874fa44d110b2119208ba6fb27607799f16a00c82143201ad7f179a89f0df349",
"created_at": 1686152577,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"95a36d78d6bf18f4b8ede735f044f5cc9630ae9f0b1198d008835777ff84eede",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"f19305f4031ad0d26dffd8297e4280e70863e90d95594506ba306a1675400682",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"e899768d254f3537af7e26455968583632d0ab0bd4c780445eacfa087ac80d8f"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-07-23\n📝 Original message:Quality of service as in:\n\n\u003e X satoshi / kb = included in block currently worked on;\n\n\u003e Y satoshi / kb = included in next block;\n\n\u003e Z satoshi / kb = included in block after that, etc.\n\nBlock count starts when transaction is first seen. Miners can set X, Y, Z. \n\nMarket develops when miners start setting different values and adding more transactions to blocks as opposed to other miners with higher settings. \n\nIt basically comes down to the miners themselves if they want a healthy fee market. If they stick to their guns, their influence on the fees will be proportional to their hashing power.\n\njp\n\n\u003e On Jul 24, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Eric Lombrozo \u003celombrozo at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e On Jul 23, 2015, at 5:22 PM, Jean-Paul Kogelman \u003cjeanpaulkogelman at me.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e You are not going to get a fair fee market if your only form of enforcement is the threat of exclusion.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e A more fair fee market will develop if miners start offering quality of service, preferably at multiple tiers. At that point any interference from a block size cap will only be detrimental. In fact it will only highlight what the cap is actually for; to prevent monster blocks.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e Add better QoS tools for miners and extend the cap (when possible) and there's your fee market.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e jp\n\u003e \n\u003e Not sure what you mean by QoS here. Either your transaction is included or it isn’t. It’s not like you can upgrade to a master suite with a view or anything.",
"sig": "53df16c60c8b6ed58dc9d0c2b8cd5b60907ffaff3d53ac8e1cf8b48c735aa62d1ca931ad0b1bbf7a0053ce92106510e7c07a1a0e69390f982fa5819ac2f77f38"
}