Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2013-10-24 📝 Original message:On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at ...

📅 Original date posted:2013-10-24
📝 Original message:On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 04:46:41PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
> Well, miners are all supposed to be more or less equivalent - modulo
> differences in tx acceptance policies - so I'd hope that having out of bad
> fee mechanisms yet still broadcasting the TX isn't that common. If it was
> broadcasted, it should get mined in short order, otherwise things are going
> wrong.

Eligius has contracts to do transaction mining, and it's currently 10%
of the hashing power.

As I said elsewhere, a good use-case for OOB fee payment is for
merchants who use the payment protocol, and want to get their customers
transactions mined as efficiently and cheaply as possible.
(child-pays-for-parent has more blockchain bloat and thus extra expense)

> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
>
> > Anyway, in what circumstance would a customer want an exclusive contract
> > with a miner?
> >
>
> I was thinking for transactions that aren't standard so have to be
> submitted to miners directly.

Sure, but even then there's no harm in letting more than one miner know
about it.

There's even an existing form of this: P2Pool lets shares be accompanied
by up to 50KB worth of transactions of any form.

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000d2860c825ea223b805c60a33b26b9b70616698033d360b066
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 685 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131024/2cd3d55b/attachment.sig>;