rich1.0npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydhttps://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-02-12 📝 Original message:I know you will ignore this as usual, but the entire replace-by-fee folly is based on your fundamental misunderstanding of miner incentives. Miners are *not* incentivised to earn the most money in the next block possible. They are incentivised to maximise their return on investment. Making Bitcoin much less useful reduces demand for the bitcoins they are mining, reducing coinbase and fee income in future blocks. Quite possibly, to the point where those miners are then making a loss. Your "scorched earth" plan is aptly named, as it's guaranteed to make unconfirmed payments useless. If enough miners do it they will simply break Bitcoin to the point where it's no longer an interesting payments system for lots of people. Then miners who have equipment to pay off will be *really* screwed, not to mention payment processors and all the investors in them. I'm sure you can confuse a few miners into thinking your ideas are a super-duper way to maximise their income, and in the process might facilitate a pile of payment fraud. But they aren't. This one is about as sensible as your "let's never increase the block size" and "let's kill SPV clients" crusades - badly thought out and bad for Bitcoin. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150212/48b4714f/attachment.html>