As i understand it, the transactions to be included in a block are
entirely up to the miner of that block.
What prevents a miner from implementing the proposal on their own?
If this is adopted as some kind of "policy", what forces a miner to
follow it?
Jim Renkel
On 12/2/2017 10:07 PM, Damian Williamson via bitcoin-dev wrote:
# BIP Proposal: UTWFOTIB - Use Transaction Weight For Ordering
Transactions In Blocks
I admit, with my limited experience in the operation of the protocol,
the section entitled 'Solution operation' may not be entirely correct
but you will get the idea. If I have it wrong, please correct it back
to the list.
## The problem:
Everybody wants value. Miners want to maximize revenue from fees.
Consumers want transaction reliability and, (we presume) low fees.
Current transaction bandwidth limit is a limiting factor for both.
## Solution summary:
Provide each transaction with a transaction weight, being a function
of the fee paid (on a curve), and the time waiting in the transaction
pool (also on a curve) out to n days (n=30 ?); the transaction weight
serving as the likelihood of a transaction being included in the
current block, and then use a target block size.
Protocol enforcement to prevent high or low blocksize cheating to be
handled by having the protocol determine the target size for the
current block using; current transaction pool size x ( 1 / (144 x n
days ) ) = transactions to be included in the current block.
The curves used for the weight of transactions would have to be
appropriate.
## Pros:
* Maximizes transaction reliability.
* Maximizes possibility for consumer and business uptake.
* Maximizes total fees paid per block without reducing reliability;
because of reliability, confidence and uptake are greater; therefore,
more transactions and more transactions total at priority fees.
* Market determines fee paid for transaction priority.
* Fee recommendations work all the way out to 30 days or greater.
* Provides additional block entropy and greater security since there
is less probability of predicting the next block.
## Cons:
* ?
* Must be first be programmed.
* Anything else?
## Solution operation:
As I have said, my simplistic view of the operation. If I have this
wrong, please correct it back to the list.
1. The protocol determines the target block size.
2. Assign each transaction in the pool a transaction weight based on
fee and time waiting in the transaction pool.
3. Begin selecting transactions to include in the current block using
transaction weight as the likelihood of inclusion until target block
size is met.
4. Solve block.
Regards,
Damian Williamson
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev