Joost Jager [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2023-05-23 🗒️ Summary of this message: Proposal ...
📅 Original date posted:2023-05-23
🗒️ Summary of this message: Proposal suggests encrypting transactions for external mempool display and incentivizing mining pools to include them with higher fees. Trust issues arise.
📝 Original message:Hi fd0,
> - Transactions could be encrypted when published as nostr events initially
> except size, fee rate and offer. This can be used by different clients to
> show them as external mempool with transactions sorted by fee rate without
> affecting privacy of users.
>
I don't think this will work because those encrypted transactions could all
be fake and distort the view clients have on this 'mempool'?
> - Mining pools will be incentivized to include these transaction in their
> blocks if they are using a higher fee rate compared to transactions in
> normal mempool used by bitcoin nodes or there is a mechanism to accept
> published offers, NIP4 is used to privately coordinate everything between
> user and pool. User can lock some sats in a 2of2 multisig and release it to
> mining pool on confirmation.
>
I believe you are suggesting out-of-band payment in case the fee included
in the transaction itself is insufficient and CPFP/RBF is impossible or
impractical? The question is why would the miner trust you to indeed
release after confirmation? The 2-of-2 presumably has a clawback clause
with a timeout that could be used by the user to avoid paying.
Joost
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230523/30d85a52/attachment.html>;
🗒️ Summary of this message: Proposal suggests encrypting transactions for external mempool display and incentivizing mining pools to include them with higher fees. Trust issues arise.
📝 Original message:Hi fd0,
> - Transactions could be encrypted when published as nostr events initially
> except size, fee rate and offer. This can be used by different clients to
> show them as external mempool with transactions sorted by fee rate without
> affecting privacy of users.
>
I don't think this will work because those encrypted transactions could all
be fake and distort the view clients have on this 'mempool'?
> - Mining pools will be incentivized to include these transaction in their
> blocks if they are using a higher fee rate compared to transactions in
> normal mempool used by bitcoin nodes or there is a mechanism to accept
> published offers, NIP4 is used to privately coordinate everything between
> user and pool. User can lock some sats in a 2of2 multisig and release it to
> mining pool on confirmation.
>
I believe you are suggesting out-of-band payment in case the fee included
in the transaction itself is insufficient and CPFP/RBF is impossible or
impractical? The question is why would the miner trust you to indeed
release after confirmation? The 2-of-2 presumably has a clawback clause
with a timeout that could be used by the user to avoid paying.
Joost
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230523/30d85a52/attachment.html>;