From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WwbBf-0006G4-FQ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 17:59:19 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.170 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.170; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f170.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f170.google.com ([209.85.214.170]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WwbBd-0002V1-PL for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 17:59:19 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f170.google.com with SMTP id uz6so6104369obc.15 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:59:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.134.175 with SMTP id pl15mr3782553oeb.81.1402941552166; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:59:12 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.71.162 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:59:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1801389.9PVWAZniMG@crushinator> References: <87aaf81b20e17332175a3fbcd091c317.squirrel@fulvetta.riseup.net> <53959513.H7tOyQYvqT@crushinator> <539F244C.2090009@gmail.com> <1801389.9PVWAZniMG@crushinator> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 19:59:12 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: HTEU8U9GlGPsrSES3d3Meti2yR0 Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Matt Whitlock Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b41ce12db900e04fbf7c8d9 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1WwbBd-0002V1-PL Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Incentivizing the running of full nodes X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 17:59:19 -0000 --047d7b41ce12db900e04fbf7c8d9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > This is a cool idea, but doesn't it generate some perverse incentives? If > I'm running a full node and I want to pay CheapAir for some plane tickets, > I'll want to pay in the greatest number of individual transactions possible Peers can calculate rewards based on number of inputs or total kb used: you're paying for kilobytes with either coin age or fees no matter what. So I think in practice it's not a big deal. --047d7b41ce12db900e04fbf7c8d9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This is a cool idea, but doesn't it generate= some perverse incentives? If I'm running a full node and I want to pay= CheapAir for some plane tickets, I'll want to pay in the greatest numb= er of individual transactions possible

Peers can calculate rewards based on number of inputs o= r total kb used: you're paying for kilobytes with either coin age or fe= es no matter what. So I think in practice it's not a big deal.
--047d7b41ce12db900e04fbf7c8d9--