darosior [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: š Original date posted:2022-02-11 š Original message:Well because in the ...
š
Original date posted:2022-02-11
š Original message:Well because in the example i gave you this decreases the miner's reward. The rule of increasing feerate you stated isn't always economically rationale.
Note how it can also be extended, for instance if the miner only has 1.5vMB of txs and is not assured to receive enough transactions to fill 2 blocks he might be interested in maximizing absolute fees, not feerate.
Sure, we could make the argument that long term we need a large backlog of transactions anyways.. But that'd be unfortunately not in phase with today's reality.
-------- Original Message --------
On Feb 11, 2022, 00:51, James O'Beirne wrote:
>> It's not that simple. As a miner, if i have less than 1vMB of transactions in my mempool. I don't want a 10sats/vb transaction paying 100000sats by a 100sats/vb transaction paying only 10000sats.
>
> I don't understand why the "<1vMB in the mempool" case is even worth consideration because the miner will just include the entire mempool in the next block regardless of feerate.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220211/82a07832/attachment.html>;
š Original message:Well because in the example i gave you this decreases the miner's reward. The rule of increasing feerate you stated isn't always economically rationale.
Note how it can also be extended, for instance if the miner only has 1.5vMB of txs and is not assured to receive enough transactions to fill 2 blocks he might be interested in maximizing absolute fees, not feerate.
Sure, we could make the argument that long term we need a large backlog of transactions anyways.. But that'd be unfortunately not in phase with today's reality.
-------- Original Message --------
On Feb 11, 2022, 00:51, James O'Beirne wrote:
>> It's not that simple. As a miner, if i have less than 1vMB of transactions in my mempool. I don't want a 10sats/vb transaction paying 100000sats by a 100sats/vb transaction paying only 10000sats.
>
> I don't understand why the "<1vMB in the mempool" case is even worth consideration because the miner will just include the entire mempool in the next block regardless of feerate.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220211/82a07832/attachment.html>;