{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub16dt55fpq3a8r6zpphd9xngxr46zzqs75gna9cj5vf8pknyv2d7equx4wrd","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub16dt55fpq3a8r6zpphd9xngxr46zzqs75gna9cj5vf8pknyv2d7equx4wrd","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2018-01-28\n📝 Original message:On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 05:43:34PM +0100, Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e Peter Todd wrote:\n\u003e \u003e In fact I considered only requiring an increase in fee rate, based on the\n\u003e \u003e theory that if absolute fee went down, the transaction must be smaller and thus\n\u003e \u003e miners could overall earn more from the additional transactions they could fit\n\u003e \u003e into their block. But to do that properly requires considering whether or not\n\u003e \u003e that's actually true in the particular state the mempool as a whole happens to\n\u003e \u003e be in, so I ditched that idea early on for the much simpler criteria of both a\n\u003e \u003e feerate and absolute fee increase.\n\u003e \n\u003e Why would you need to consider the whole mempool? \n\nImagine a miner is only concerned with creating the next block and his\nmempool currently only has 750,000 vbytes in it.  If two 250-vbyte\ntransactions each paying a feerate of 100 nanobitcoins per vbyte (50k\ntotal) are replaced with one 325-vbyte transaction paying a feerate of\n120 nBTC (39k total), the miner's potential income from mining the next\nblock is reduced by 11k nBTC.\n\nMoving away from this easily worked example, the problem can still exist\neven if a miner has enough transactions to fill the next block.  For\nreplacement consideration only by increased feerate to be guaranteed\nmore profitable, one has to assume the mempool contains an effectively\ncontinuous distribution of feerates.  That may one day be true of the\nmempool (it would be good, because it helps keep block production\nregular sans subsidy) but it's often not the case these days.\n\n-Dave\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 819 bytes\nDesc: not available\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180128/f2431b67/attachment.sig\u003e"}