Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-05-10 📝 Original message:On Sun, May 10, 2015 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-05-10
📝 Original message:On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Sergio Lerner
<sergiolerner at certimix.com> wrote:
> Can the system by gamed?
Users can pay fees or a portion of fees out of band to miner(s); this
is undetectable to the network.
It's also behavior that miners have engaged in since at least 2011 (in
two forms; treating transactions that paid them directly via outputs
as having that much more in fees; and taking contracts for fast
processing for identified transactions (e.g. address matching or via
an API) e.g. "I'll pay you x at the end of the month for each of my
transactions you process, you can poll this API". I'm aware of at
least two companies having had this arrangement with miners).
I think what you suggested then just further rewards this behavior as
it allows bypassing your controls.-- I suspect generally any scheme
the looks at the fee values has this property.
📝 Original message:On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Sergio Lerner
<sergiolerner at certimix.com> wrote:
> Can the system by gamed?
Users can pay fees or a portion of fees out of band to miner(s); this
is undetectable to the network.
It's also behavior that miners have engaged in since at least 2011 (in
two forms; treating transactions that paid them directly via outputs
as having that much more in fees; and taking contracts for fast
processing for identified transactions (e.g. address matching or via
an API) e.g. "I'll pay you x at the end of the month for each of my
transactions you process, you can poll this API". I'm aware of at
least two companies having had this arrangement with miners).
I think what you suggested then just further rewards this behavior as
it allows bypassing your controls.-- I suspect generally any scheme
the looks at the fee values has this property.