> Should we give up on the possibility to burn coins, and give up on
> incentivizing small blocks, because of the perceived complexity of
> a subtraction?
There's a little more complexity involved. First, you have to think about
fast-synced pruned nodes. They have to know about past burn
dear Ignotus,
> I like the idea, it's simple and elegant and seems to put the right
> incentives in place.
>
> I don't like that it relies on burn. It puts us between a rock and a hard
> place as we either:
>
> * Materialize the burn as specific outputs and keep them forever, bloating
> the
I like the idea, it's simple and elegant and seems to put the right incentives
in place.
I don't like that it relies on burn. It puts us between a rock and a hard place
as we either:
* Materialize the burn as specific outputs and keep them forever, bloating the
chain.
* Just reduce the
> Is the total miner reward calculated as: BaseReward - Burn [BaseReward * (N
> / MaxN)^2] + N * TxFee ?
That's a simplification of the general formulation where all
transactions have the same #inputs,
#outputs, #kernels, and fee.
The burning can be implemented either as a reduction in reward, or
Yes, you are right Sen. Minimum fee in a block will be:
MinTxFee = 2*N/MaxN * BaseReward (there was a - sign missing in
your formula).
I think this will work fine to limit block size. I'm more worried
about the effect in the
monetary supply. If you consider Bitcoin annual fee revenue was
5 matches
Mail list logo
