[Bitcoin-ml] Transaction mining priorities.

freetrader freetrader at tuta.io
Thu Sep 21 10:08:41 UTC 2017


tomz,

Lots of good ideas on improving Bitcoin software in this thread from various sides, thanks for raising the topic.

But I do have to correct something you wrote in your last post:

> Remember, with the large number of ABC nodes on the Cash network, we can’t 
relay and mine zero-fee transactions. But we used to have such transactions 
and we want to get back to that.

I believe you know that nearly 30% of Cash network nodes are ABC 0.15.0 which ought to allow relaying and mining of transactions per default configuration. In addition to those there are other clients that do too.

If Miners may not yet have implemented this policy for whatever reasons, but I believe that claiming  this is due to ABC code is factually inaccurate.
If you know of technical reasons why the current ABC code would not permit relay/mining of zero-fee transactions, please let me know.

Looking into why not more zero-fee transactions are mined [1], I found that some recently included high-ouput-numbers transactions that were speculated to be part of some attack preparation (I think this assumption was later questioned by Andrew Chow in a well-reasoned post on Reddit which won't dig up now...)

However, maybe some uncertainty around that plays a part in why they are not mined more frequently currently. I think we won't really know unless miners tell us why.

[1] https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash/transactions?q=is_coinbase%280%29,fee%280%29&s=time%28desc%29

--

freetrader at tuta.io

GPG fingerprint: CC32 9A4F B0E4 1392 8295  05FE C07A 7C34 5E86 B06C



21. Sep 2017 11:32 by bitcoin-ml at lists.linuxfoundation.org:


> On Thursday, 21 September 2017 11:13:52 CEST Tomas via bitcoin-ml wrote:
>> The term priority is used in this thread but it isn't really relevant if
>> blocks aren't full, and I believe we will raise the blocksize in time to
>> prevent it from ever happening.
>
> That would be nice, but that idea is not realistic.
> If this were the case then the “backup my harddrive to the blockchain” 
> scenarios would become reality, and that just doesn’t make any sense.
>
> Remember, with the large number of ABC nodes on the Cash network, we can’t 
> relay and mine zero-fee transactions. But we used to have such transactions 
> and we want to get back to that.
>
> As such we need a bit of blocksize pressure, to avoid people coming to the 
> conclusion that they can use the Bitcoin Cash chain for everything they 
> want. Remember that huge thread about DNS entries on the blockchain and 
> Satoshi stating that the blockchain is a generic database for all things.
> He was right, and we must keep that warning in mind.
>
> The priorities in the OP mail are relevant to avoid such a set up from being 
> easy to spam and denying service to normal customers.
> -- 
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-ml/attachments/20170921/ac599a1a/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the bitcoin-ml mailing list