Sorry, last bullet point should be: • It incentivizes pooled mining, since *users* will probably only submit transactions to the top N accelerators, if you're not in the top N pools, you're incentivized to join one to maximize your fees
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:21 PM, Casey Rodarmor <ca...@rodarmor.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Fernando Nieto <fernand...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Once blocks are full, even if you only burn part of the fees, what makes >> you think users will publish transactions with a fee greater than >> MIN_FEE, instead of sending a MIN_FEE transaction to a known miner and >> then splitting the rest of the fee (that would otherwise be burnt) >> between them? > > I'm curious what others think of this, but to me this is a really > strong argument against burning fees. > > This would incentivize every miner to run transaction accelerators, > which seems bad on a few fronts: > > • Accelerators are bad for privacy, since they give miners a chance to > associate IPs with transactions > > • Accelerators require a bit of extra infrastructure, which means that > miners won't be able to switch frictionlessly to and from mining Grin > > • It incentivizes pooled mining, since unless will probably only > submit transactions to the top N accelerators, so if you're not in the > top N pools, you're incentivized to join one to maximize your fees -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble Post to : mimblewimble@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
