[Bitcoin-development] Punishing empty blocks?

Jeff Garzik jgarzik at exmulti.com
Thu May 24 21:00:42 UTC 2012

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> These are problematic for legitimate miners:
> 1) The freedom to reject transactions based on fees or spam filters, is
> severely restricted. As mentioned in other replies, this is an important point
> of Bitcoin's design.
> 1b) This punishes miners with superior transaction spam filtering. As with all
> spam filtering, it is often an "arms race" and therefore the filter rules must
> be kept private by the miners, and therefore cannot be disclosed for the
> validating clients to take into consideration.

This is simply not true given current available data, i.e. the current
blockchain and ongoing not-spam transaction rate/pool.

> The argument that these are not rule changes is flawed:
> 1) As of right now, 99% of the network runs a single client. Anything this
> client rejects does de facto become a rule change.

According to your own numbers even, this is not true.  99% of the
network runs a wide variety of rules and versions.  Even with a
"critical" security announcement, the percentage of those running the
latest version is not large.

> 2) Even if there were a diverse ecosystem of clients in place, discouragement
> rules that potentially affect legitimate miners significantly mess with the
> odds of finding a block.
> 3) If legitimate miners do not adopt counter-rules to bypass these new
> restrictions, the illegitimate miners are left with an even larger percentage
> of blocks found.

Miners are not the -only- ones that get a say in what is spam, and
what is not.  If miners are generating garbage, network users have the
right to veto that garbage.

Jeff Garzik
exMULTI, Inc.
jgarzik at exmulti.com

More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list