El 10/05/2015 06:07 p.m., Gregory Maxwell escribió:
> On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Sergio Lerner
> wrote:
>> Can the system by gamed?
> Users can pay fees or a portion of fees out of band to miner(s); this
> is undetectable to the network.
Then this is exactly what is needed. Let me explain.
Why do so many tie the block size debate to creating "a fee market", as if one
didn't already exist? Yes, today we frequently see many low priority
transactions included into the next block, but that does not mean there is not
a marketplace for block space. It just means miners are not being suf
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Sergio Lerner
wrote:
> Can the system by gamed?
Users can pay fees or a portion of fees out of band to miner(s); this
is undetectable to the network.
It's also behavior that miners have engaged in since at least 2011 (in
two forms; treating transactions that pai
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 05:45:32PM -0300, Sergio Lerner wrote:
> Two years ago I presented a new way to create a fee market that does not
> depend on the block chain limit.
> Solution: Require that the set of fees collected in a block has a
> dispersion below a threshold. Use, for example, the C
Two years ago I presented a new way to create a fee market that does not
depend on the block chain limit.
This proposal has not been formally analyzed in any paper since then,
but I think it holds a good promise to untangle the current problem
regarding increasing the tps and creating the fee mark
5 matches
Mail list logo
