[Bitcoin-ml] Transaction mining priorities.

Gal Buki jkl at torus.ch
Wed Sep 20 07:02:41 UTC 2017


I like the Toms ideas to prioritize transactions based on the proposed list.

As fees on Bitcoin Cash are low sending many large and low fee tx is cheap

One of the big features of BCC is that merchants can assume that a payment
is included in the next block and thus minimize the risk for double
spends. Keeping this property is important and abusing the system with a
burst of low fee tx should not succeed in removing this property.

Maybe this could be implemented as a bonus-malus system where tx with a
higher score are not only prioritized but the tx of the opposite side of
the scale punished by not including them in the next block even if there
is still space.

Any tx that pays a fee should be allowed on the network and in the best
case confirmed in the next block (even if perceived as spamming by some)
but this could give incentives to users not to abuse the system.

> Mining is actually kind of a bet that the price isn't going to
skyrocket, since in that case you would have been better off just buying
your position upfront rather than mining for it over time.

Your assumption is that miners make less bitcoin than they invested in the
first place. This can't be right.
Mining is a business, meaning you want to produce more bitcoins then you

With the surplus you can either speculate that the price will rise or
reinvest. Thus a rising price is in the interest of the miners as they
will be able to buy more gear (production costs are in fiat) or just keep
more value in bitcoin.

Additional and more expensive fees during mining can help you ROI sooner
but usually the difficulty adjustment evens the price increase out.

Based on the above I agree that basic game theory with short term gains is
in not the only factor in a miners business plan.


On Wed, September 20, 2017 3:07 am, Andrew Johnson via bitcoin-ml wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 4:26 PM Tom Zander via bitcoin-ml <
> bitcoin-ml at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 23:16:35 CEST Andrew Johnson wrote:
>> > > The music industry is making the same mistake, they too say that
>> people
>> > > that
>> > > copy the music without paying are actually stealing. Because, they
>> must
>> > > reason, we *could have* received money from them instead.
>> >
>> > I'm not understanding your analogy here. I think a better one would be
>> > {snip}
>> > That doesn't make any sense.
>> Yours doesn’t make sense, I agree.
> I know you are, but what am I?  That’s your response?  I’m trying to
> have a
> productive conversation with you here, perhaps I’m wasting my time.
> I’ll go
> ahead and respond to the rest of your message, but let’s try and keep it
> rational, eh?  If you disagree with me, tell me why. Otherwise what’s
> even
> the point of this list?
>> > > The basic fact here is that the actual cost of mining a 1MB or a
>> 20MB
>> > > block has no effective difference for miners cost structure.
>> >
>> > Orphan risk is a huge one.
>> Xthin / compact blocks solved that some time ago.
> They reduced it, didn’t solve it.
>> > > They can’t expect to sit on those coins for the next 10 years
>> hoping
>> > > they
>> > > get more profitable.
>> >
>> > Most don't
>> Good we agree ;)
> Do we?  It seems to me that at a high level that you’re saying that
> miners
> want a healthy network with more adoption in order to increase the value
> of
> what they mine. I’m saying that they can’t look that far ahead and
> have to
> focus on very short term incentives.  But you’re saying that my view is
> too
> simplistic and that they have a bigger picture in mind, isn’t that
> right?
>> > Individual centralized companies running in the red for a long period
>> of
>> > time to essentially buy their own personal customer base/network
>> effect
>> > with the intention of monetizing it later isn't even close to the same
>> > thing as being one of many miners in a distributed system.  This is
>> also
>> a
>> > poor comparison, in my opinion.
>> That wasn’t my comparison at all. Please don’t put words in my
>> mouth.
> Ok, so can you explain it then?  I obviously misunderstood you, I’m not
> trying to be combative here, though you somewhat seem to be...  Attacking
> an idea is not the same thing as attacking a person.
>> --
>> Tom Zander
>> Blog: https://zander.github.io
>> Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-ml mailing list
>> bitcoin-ml at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-ml
> --
> Andrew Johnson
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-ml mailing list
> bitcoin-ml at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-ml

More information about the bitcoin-ml mailing list