Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2022-07-26 📝 Original message:On July 26, 2022 2:19:32 ...
📅 Original date posted:2022-07-26
📝 Original message:On July 26, 2022 2:19:32 PM GMT+02:00, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>Hi Aaradhya,
>
>> As it's not a consensus rule, I think it can be done easily, just needing support from full node operators
>
>A few miners will need to use a lower minrelaytxfee for this to work. I don't think miners would want to lower their profits.
Whether or not this lowers profits for a particular miner is complex:
https://petertodd.org/2016/block-publication-incentives-for-miners
But to a first approximation, at any fee above zero failing to mine a tx you know about is leaving money on the table.
Anyway even if miners don't actually mine these txs by themselves, with Child-Pays-For-Parent, allowing near-zero txs into your mempool potentially allows you to mine more fees.
📝 Original message:On July 26, 2022 2:19:32 PM GMT+02:00, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>Hi Aaradhya,
>
>> As it's not a consensus rule, I think it can be done easily, just needing support from full node operators
>
>A few miners will need to use a lower minrelaytxfee for this to work. I don't think miners would want to lower their profits.
Whether or not this lowers profits for a particular miner is complex:
https://petertodd.org/2016/block-publication-incentives-for-miners
But to a first approximation, at any fee above zero failing to mine a tx you know about is leaving money on the table.
Anyway even if miners don't actually mine these txs by themselves, with Child-Pays-For-Parent, allowing near-zero txs into your mempool potentially allows you to mine more fees.