Yes. It’s not “zero-fee” in that they’re not paying anything, but the fee is out-of-band (ie: not included in the TX).
It’s anti-social, and unnecessary, though it’s not a consensus issue. There’s no reason the fee *couldn’t* be encoded into the TX itself, even for a directly mined TX. If the fee is in the TX, then the direct-miner is still guaranteed to receive 100% of it.
Only reason to hide the fee is to intentionally obscure what is being paid, which is why I take issue with it. On a few small TX, it’s not a big deal, but if it becomes common, especially with big TX, then I believe it starts to negatively impact the fee market, and negatively affects ASIC operators.
To be clear, I have no issue with direct-mining of TX. Plenty of reasons for that. But put the fee in-band.
ASIC operators should hold their pools accountable for taking these TX, by moving pools.
arceris / Arceris
npub1k7…58edl
2023-02-16 19:21:05
in reply to nevent1q…9e9e
Author Public Key
npub1k7tcreyu0w970fxsht8ccw54az2yh27agf4x2s92crwam9mw9cws558edlPublished at
2023-02-16 19:21:05Event JSON
{
"id": "eecd2b87d2d5e7bfe2d045abe6127b6b1c49ee8422e0df607e1416e87b5c4246",
"pubkey": "b79781e49c7b8be7a4d0bacf8c3a95e8944babdd426a6540aac0dddd976e2e1d",
"created_at": 1676575265,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"d5906d31478874a8baadfab76dba667ec7b0174ae84365ba64023479324ce4e1",
""
],
[
"e",
"16e413119fab3cbb6e064b9a062225baa1d7b44df7fb437db782fb3e1d12ec00"
],
[
"p",
"e2260a7af33b3ba30074111c456793cef58d2ab43c5965bdbb655f90f97399ac"
],
[
"p",
"547f45b91c1e6b4137917cde4fa1da867c8cdfe43d0f646c836a622769795a14"
]
],
"content": "Yes. It’s not “zero-fee” in that they’re not paying anything, but the fee is out-of-band (ie: not included in the TX).\n\nIt’s anti-social, and unnecessary, though it’s not a consensus issue. There’s no reason the fee *couldn’t* be encoded into the TX itself, even for a directly mined TX. If the fee is in the TX, then the direct-miner is still guaranteed to receive 100% of it.\n\nOnly reason to hide the fee is to intentionally obscure what is being paid, which is why I take issue with it. On a few small TX, it’s not a big deal, but if it becomes common, especially with big TX, then I believe it starts to negatively impact the fee market, and negatively affects ASIC operators.\n\nTo be clear, I have no issue with direct-mining of TX. Plenty of reasons for that. But put the fee in-band.\n\nASIC operators should hold their pools accountable for taking these TX, by moving pools.",
"sig": "9d261eb5f9b8f06e8d3d5997eecaf49e03d6820c13e58b48c14d11e56017390a5d6c9ce50d462fffc35bdd395d58d5c1bb477ef8dc89b02fafc22ded2e774135"
}