rich1.0npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-05-09 📝 Original message:On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 01:36:56AM +0300, Joel Joonatan Kaartinen wrote: > such a contract is a possibility, but why would big owners give an > exclusive right to such pools? It seems to me it'd make sense to offer > those for any miner as long as the get paid a little for it. Especially > when it's as simple as offering an incomplete transaction with the > appropriate SIGHASH flags. Like many things, the fact that they need to negotiate the right at all is a *huge* barrier to smaller mining operations, as well as being an attractive point of control for regulators. > a part of the reason I like this idea is because it will allow stakeholders > a degree of influence on how large the fees are. At least from the surface, > it looks like incentives are pretty well matched. They have an incentive to > not let the fees drop too low so the network continues to be usable and > they also have an incentive to not raise them too high because it'll push > users into using other systems. Also, there'll be competition between > stakeholders, which should keep the fees reasonable. If you want to allow stakeholders influence you should look into John Dillon's proof-of-stake blocksize voting scheme: http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg02323.html -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 00000000000000000e7980aab9c096c46e7f34c43a661c5cb2ea71525ebb8af7 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 650 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150509/1d6c3b4f/attachment.sig>