[Bitcoin-development] Punishing empty blocks?

Rebroad (sourceforge) rebroad+sourceforge.net at gmail.com
Tue May 29 16:30:52 UTC 2012


I'd like to garner consensus on whether anyone else thinks it desirable to
have a flag option for bitcoin to punish blocks for not including
transactions. I notice there are already pro-miner options, such as the
restricting the relaying of free transactions, and so including an option
to restrict relaying of blocks from "stingy" miners to balance against the
current bias, so that the default bitcoin client can be run as much
pro-miner as pro-non-miner.

On Monday, May 28, 2012, rebroad at gmail.com wrote:

> What i think this thread reveals is whether a bitcoin client is pro-miner
> or pro-non-miner. What i think is needed is a fork where one benefits
> miners (e.g. Limits relaying of free transactions, as has been added to the
> current default client), and one that benefits non-miners (e.g. Limits
> relaying of blocks not including free transactions). Then people can vote
> based on the client they use.
>
> It seems to me that the current main client is a pro-miner one, and
> possibly not what most people would vote for if they were given an easier
> choice.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120529/2b9a2105/attachment.html>


More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list