On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 1:44 AM, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:30:06AM +, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > One point that comes up while talking about merkelized scripts is can
> > we go about making
Miners can fill their blocks with transactions paying very high fees at no
cost because they get the fees back to themselves. They can do this for
different purposes, like trying to increase the recommended fee. Here I
propose a backwards-compatible solution to this problem.
The solution would be
Gah, please no. I see no material reason why cross-input signature aggregation
shouldn't have the signatures in the first n-1 inputs replaced with something
like a single-byte push where a signature is required to indicate aggregation,
and the combined signature in the last input at whatever
Not incentive compatible. Miners would prefer to include transactions
paying fees via alternative mechanisms (anyone can spend outputs,
direct pay to miner outputs, or completely out of band), if they even
paid attention to internal fees at all they would give a lot more
weight to direct payment
The OP premise is flawed:
https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/wiki/Fee-Recovery-Fallacy
as is the idea that side fees are incentive incompatible:
https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/wiki/Side-Fee-Fallacy
e
On 01/27/2018 11:06 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Not
