arceris on Nostr: Yes. It’s not “zero-fee” in that they’re not paying anything, but the fee is ...
Yes. It’s not “zero-fee” in that they’re not paying anything, but the fee is out-of-band (ie: not included in the TX).
It’s anti-social, and unnecessary, though it’s not a consensus issue. There’s no reason the fee *couldn’t* be encoded into the TX itself, even for a directly mined TX. If the fee is in the TX, then the direct-miner is still guaranteed to receive 100% of it.
Only reason to hide the fee is to intentionally obscure what is being paid, which is why I take issue with it. On a few small TX, it’s not a big deal, but if it becomes common, especially with big TX, then I believe it starts to negatively impact the fee market, and negatively affects ASIC operators.
To be clear, I have no issue with direct-mining of TX. Plenty of reasons for that. But put the fee in-band.
ASIC operators should hold their pools accountable for taking these TX, by moving pools.
It’s anti-social, and unnecessary, though it’s not a consensus issue. There’s no reason the fee *couldn’t* be encoded into the TX itself, even for a directly mined TX. If the fee is in the TX, then the direct-miner is still guaranteed to receive 100% of it.
Only reason to hide the fee is to intentionally obscure what is being paid, which is why I take issue with it. On a few small TX, it’s not a big deal, but if it becomes common, especially with big TX, then I believe it starts to negatively impact the fee market, and negatively affects ASIC operators.
To be clear, I have no issue with direct-mining of TX. Plenty of reasons for that. But put the fee in-band.
ASIC operators should hold their pools accountable for taking these TX, by moving pools.