Ravel is one of my all time favourites. Thanks for the post
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
Last edited:
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
79b79aa8
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2015
- 1,031
- 3,440
@shadders on competitive mining.
the third conclusion seems overstated
the third conclusion seems overstated
as it only applies in the relatively far-off situation in which the block reward has become negligible.
That's a great read. BSV is growing up. The game theory around the obvious double-spend has its criticisms. @Peter R has done the experiments. How obvious is it when not all transactions are relayed because there is a minimum relay fee.
@shadders does a great job of outlining the risks and rewards and predicting how things could evolve.
someone explain this to me:
By gaining exclusive access to the fees they claim them regardless of who mines the transactions.
my assumption would be that Mempool gains exclusive use of the tx's for mining into a self constructed block, ie, other mining pools don't even get access to them within their mempools since they won't be transmitted network wide. thus, the follow on discussion by @shadders regarding
minrelaytxfee and double spending is rendered moot?
[doublepost=1572291038][/doublepost]or cannot it not be this way since it would seem that WeatherSV data needs to be accessible realtime?
By gaining exclusive access to the fees they claim them regardless of who mines the transactions.
my assumption would be that Mempool gains exclusive use of the tx's for mining into a self constructed block, ie, other mining pools don't even get access to them within their mempools since they won't be transmitted network wide. thus, the follow on discussion by @shadders regarding
minrelaytxfee and double spending is rendered moot?
[doublepost=1572291038][/doublepost]or cannot it not be this way since it would seem that WeatherSV data needs to be accessible realtime?
Otaci
Member
- Jul 26, 2017
- 74
- 384
Fees paid out of band. Not in the tx but by some other mechanism.
[doublepost=1572291874][/doublepost]We've seen it before, a miner accepting BCH to prioritize a BTC transaction. Great comedy value at the time.
[doublepost=1572291874][/doublepost]We've seen it before, a miner accepting BCH to prioritize a BTC transaction. Great comedy value at the time.
cypherblock
Active Member
- Nov 18, 2015
- 163
- 182
A lot of things in that article don't quite add up, but he's also not giving a lot of detail.
Otaci
Member
- Jul 26, 2017
- 74
- 384
If the miner accepts a fee out of band, by which I mean separately from the transactions that they commit to mine, then the transactions can have a very low, or even zero, fee. These transactions can be broadcast on the P2P network and potentially mined by anyone. If the fee within the transaction was very low then other miners might not confirm them in a block, but there's no consensus rule which prevents them from doing so, its possible that another miner would confirm them in a block. If another miner did confirm them in a block, it doesn't matter because the first miner has already received the fee for confirming the transactions.
That's why the first miner "gaining exclusive access to the fees they claim them regardless of who mines the transactions."
That's why the first miner "gaining exclusive access to the fees they claim them regardless of who mines the transactions."
> https://www.yours.org/content/the-dawn-of-the-age-of-competitive-mining-1cc8d831dc34 Discussion of the recent WeatherSV transaction fee deal.
BTC says, miners cannot be trusted and must be kept in check. BCH is afraid of perverse incentives. BSV says it all works out because miners will protect the functioning of the network and because they keep each other in check through orphaning.
I believe that BSV is correct. But the incentives around mining are complex (as shown by the example above which likely few people saw coming). Let's hope that the incentives actually turn or OK over the next few years.
BTC says, miners cannot be trusted and must be kept in check. BCH is afraid of perverse incentives. BSV says it all works out because miners will protect the functioning of the network and because they keep each other in check through orphaning.
I believe that BSV is correct. But the incentives around mining are complex (as shown by the example above which likely few people saw coming). Let's hope that the incentives actually turn or OK over the next few years.
cypherblock
Active Member
- Nov 18, 2015
- 163
- 182
I'm sure you are right about the out of band fees being used here as it seems like the only thing that makes sense.
If WeatherSV finds that the majority of their txs are actually mined by other miners after Mempool broadcasts them then I'm guessing they won't renew this agreement.
Otaci
Member
- Jul 26, 2017
- 74
- 384
Yes, I suppose so (re "not renewing the agreement"). It's complex because it is in Mempool's interest that other miners receive the transactions before they mine the block, to reduce block propagation time. Also factor in the (assumed) assurance from Mempool that the transactions will be confirmed.
Note that I have no insider knowledge about this deal, I don't know if out-of-band payments are being used in this case.
Note that I have no insider knowledge about this deal, I don't know if out-of-band payments are being used in this case.
lunar
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,001
- 4,290
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
@solex is still holding the financial reports back, while seeking new funds.
Any BU vote for moving funds are irresponsible until solid, detailed financial reports are produced.
The funds are controlled by @solex, @theZerg and @Peter R in a 2 of 3 scheme.
Nobody knows how the funds have been spent.
It's straightforward to have transparency for how bitcoin funds are spent.
But the BU officers do not want the BU members to see.
This is an economic cancer in BU (Shitcoin Unlimited) until it's fixed.
Any BU vote for moving funds are irresponsible until solid, detailed financial reports are produced.
The funds are controlled by @solex, @theZerg and @Peter R in a 2 of 3 scheme.
Nobody knows how the funds have been spent.
It's straightforward to have transparency for how bitcoin funds are spent.
But the BU officers do not want the BU members to see.
This is an economic cancer in BU (Shitcoin Unlimited) until it's fixed.
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
bitsko
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 730
- 1,532
If anyone wants to propose a new draft for the financial accountability BUIP, feel free
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
We intend to publish a financial statement, and it will definitely be out this month. Ideally these can be repeated every six months, but as I point out, the current rules do not mandate any level of detail. Nevertheless, we have gone far beyond them in transparency already.
#4solex, Sep 4, 2019
lunar
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,001
- 4,290
Latest threads
-
CRYPTOCURRENCY FRAUD RECOVERY HACKER FOR HIRE // ARGONIX HACK TECH
- andersondorothea1
- 0 replies
-
-
