pull down to refresh
215 sats \ 1 reply \ @Murch 9h \ on: Have we all been overpaying for Bitcoin transactions? bitcoin
For large parts of the last three years, there were transactions in the mempool bidding more than 1 s/vB or more. For those periods, the answer is clearly no, because the price was determined by the blockspace market, and not the minimum feerate. Beyond that, I was very surprised that the miners didn’t think their incentives through and went along with mining transactions bidding less than 1 s/vB. It seems to me that they permanently reduced the ceiling of feerate peaks, simply by replacements being incremented in smaller steps. If they had thought it through, and considered how little these fees brought in the big picture, they should not have deviated from the established minimum feerate. If they had not performed this unforced error, no in general as well.
Jargon nit:
Block reward = block subsidy + transaction fees
Jargon point: ah, thanks! I was intentionally avoiding calling the subsidy a subsidy for some reason (which I cannot make sense of at the moment).
simply by replacements being incremented in smaller steps
This is a great point. Who's gonna fee bump by 1 sat/vB when they can fee bump by 1 sat? (Perhaps an exaggeration on my part).
reply