Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2013-10-24 📝 Original message:Well, miners are all ...
📅 Original date posted:2013-10-24
📝 Original message:Well, miners are all supposed to be more or less equivalent - modulo
differences in tx acceptance policies - so I'd hope that having out of bad
fee mechanisms yet still broadcasting the TX isn't that common. If it was
broadcasted, it should get mined in short order, otherwise things are going
wrong.
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> Anyway, in what circumstance would a customer want an exclusive contract
> with a miner?
>
I was thinking for transactions that aren't standard so have to be
submitted to miners directly.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131024/de348db5/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:Well, miners are all supposed to be more or less equivalent - modulo
differences in tx acceptance policies - so I'd hope that having out of bad
fee mechanisms yet still broadcasting the TX isn't that common. If it was
broadcasted, it should get mined in short order, otherwise things are going
wrong.
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> Anyway, in what circumstance would a customer want an exclusive contract
> with a miner?
>
I was thinking for transactions that aren't standard so have to be
submitted to miners directly.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131024/de348db5/attachment.html>;