From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6259E94B for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 10:43:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pf0-f181.google.com (mail-pf0-f181.google.com [209.85.192.181]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 295D2AA for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 10:43:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf0-f181.google.com with SMTP id g65so545883pfe.13 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 03:43:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=SBiyR/wTgIDFilnL4Sb1aHdnVqzdSIhlIpdTS9PppAA=; b=TmXPei3MOuUvbifH3kgrq62JX5U5B/teWsL45a4MnmYwdH+vAWqTDQR07LXsiedVEP uCidgRLkiZ+rUo0bDHuNDpGIogflddHp+NBiHOMPbVdO6fGpdkbK5z2sE2wTQ6IS3moa Vkp7XD9SRInYR2W37d6BxyZOYHOAnTp1+mRmZnfkpivH+d5Ob6Om1/ujBqMx7yzauUxR qmyEChME5q65fso7MUP7iECoc/r22NWSpwH0KvTpJSxH/rDrs5WEouvp0RaJyk4UYYC/ 7XzeGQNW6sjx785DtP1+onIiuGU8u0Mh8UHgEl5/O0ah3C8FlpWghm9tdgJscA/8zVaw frOg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=SBiyR/wTgIDFilnL4Sb1aHdnVqzdSIhlIpdTS9PppAA=; b=DEcZhTu8fqwnJpoWHlt9oJtQ7SS+LTalo0ij6Cawjo9pglVygqiAUDhJ3czIMy5fil bPTinshJrQOWL7gaaiVodnzAzrQmHcLn0y1EEHhjLCNgWGPxqMTjcna/G3+FBzFgMvNq zkZX3TuWuf1RX0D8NVOn4lpP8IM+7b2wu2zFJt2395cRj61/N8hbrw5+9xuAWPiwmcGT XU3twPm3JgvvYeSQJydJSXzmXUIjH4rNkFnJMg/hbtU6VxSLDH478efsf7bPtqyFyHts uLUyVDGY89jXDFBVIp1e4E38hbGG5Mha6MQbOWSHP1yHstVfUfiUmhuqVyb4A8J015bl om8Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUhyVtVd7yHooWjeBHAeEcwjNHAiCwTqHcI+xrsyYB+vhy2R60tB k6bITy8y+o5sGfTaMJTv9rtKNZZkxa8Fkv1o4uc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QA+oUHwBHJwLGhOuN+Ju/GOdEnf+x0XJl2A1pyBSyNG5VtKsAxIoNhHIW5JD4zEwUwMqPwnvsyPleer55EDCnk= X-Received: by 10.159.198.10 with SMTP id f10mr6655628plo.14.1506681803562; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 03:43:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.155.44 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 03:43:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.155.44 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 03:43:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Daniele Pinna Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 12:43:22 +0200 Message-ID: To: Mark@friedenbach.org, Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0825a870b0e69e055a51b14e" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 11:55:33 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Rebatable fees & incentive-safe fee markets X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 10:43:24 -0000 --089e0825a870b0e69e055a51b14e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Maybe I'm getting this wrong but wouldn't this scheme imply that a miner is incentivized to limit the amount of transactions in a block to capture the maximum fee of the ones included? As an example, mined blocks currently carry ~0.8 btc in fees right now. If I were to submit a transaction paying 1 btc in maximal money fees, then the miner would be incentivized to include my transaction alone to avoid that lower fee paying transactions reduce the amount of fees he can earn from my transaction alone. This would mean that I could literally clog the network by paying 1btc every ten minutes. Am I missing something? Daniele --089e0825a870b0e69e055a51b14e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Maybe I'm getting this wrong but wouldn't this sc= heme imply that a miner is incentivized to limit the amount of transactions= in a block to capture the maximum fee of the ones included?

As an example, mined blocks currently carry = ~0.8 btc in fees right now. If I were to submit a transaction paying 1 btc = in maximal money fees, then the miner would be incentivized to include my t= ransaction alone to avoid that lower fee paying transactions reduce the amo= unt of fees he can earn from my transaction alone. This would mean that I c= ould literally clog the network by paying 1btc every ten minutes.

Am I missing something?

Daniele=C2=A0
--089e0825a870b0e69e055a51b14e--