If the miner wants to force fees up, why would he fill up a block with placeholder high fee transactions, instead of simply cutting off transactions paying less fee than he is willing to take? Is there any evidence someone is doing such a thing for whatever reason?
2018-01-27 6:45 GMT-02:00 Nathan Parker via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: > Miners can fill their blocks with transactions paying very high fees at no > cost because they get the fees back to themselves. They can do this for > different purposes, like trying to increase the recommended fee. Here I > propose a backwards-compatible solution to this problem. > > The solution would be to reward the fees of the current block to the miner > of the next block (or X blocks after the current one). That way, if a miner > floods its own block with very high fee transactions, those fees are no > longer given back to itself, but to the miner of future blocks which could > potentially be anyone. Flooding blocks with fake txs is now discouraged. > However, filling blocks with real transactions paying real fees is still > encouraged because you could be the one to mine the block that would claim > this reward. > > The way to implement this in a backwards-compatible fashion would be to > enforce miners to set an anyone-can-spend output in the coinbase > transaction of the block (by adding this as a rule for verifying new > blocks). The miner of 100 blocks after the current one can add a secondary > transaction spending this block's anyone-can-spend coinbase transaction > (due to the coinbase needing 100 blocks to mature) and thus claiming the > funds. This way, the block reward of a block X is always transferred to the > miner of block X+100. > > Implementing this would require a soft-fork. Since that secondary > transaction needs no signature whatsoever, the overhead caused by that > extra transaction is negligible. > > Possible Downside: When the fork is activated, the miners won’t get any > reward for mining blocks for a period of 100 blocks. They could choose to > power off the mining equipment for maintenance or to save power over that > period, so the hashrate could drop temporarily. However, if the hashrate > drops too much, blocks would take much longer to mine, and miners wouldn’t > want that either since they want to go through those 100 reward-less blocks > as soon as possible so they can start getting rewards from mining again. > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > -- Lucas Clemente Vella lve...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
