pull down to refresh

10 sats \ 3 replies \ @Murch 6 May \ parent \ on: Quick questions about OP_RETURN? Quick answers here. bitcoin
This is not an accurate representation of any argument that I have seen made.
write
preview
501 sats \ 2 replies \ @jgbtc 7 May
You made the argument above. You said it's not fair that some miners benefit from high fees from out of band transactions, i.e. the spam transactions that exceed the op_return limit.
"At this point, it seems better to make these transactions available to all miners, so at least the miners benefit fairly from the additionally available fees..."
reply
20 sats \ 1 reply \ @Murch 7 May
The point is that direct submission and private relay result in a subset of the miners building blocks from a bigger pool of transactions, because they have access to transactions other miners don't know about. Not that the out of band fees are too high.
reply
5 sats \ 0 replies \ @anon 11 Sep
If filters do not work at making it more expensive and making the lives of spammer more difficult. Why the very dev that wants spam post this article explaining why they work at making spammers endeavor costly and difficult? https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/the-bitcoin-mempool-relay-network-dynamics
Other misconception: node should follow miners' relaxed node policy. Nodes are counter power to miners. If the network filter policy is stricter, mining spam would lead to slower block propagation. Thus probability of getting orphaned by an honest miner propagating faster. Strict filters forces pool to mine honest tx and follow what policies the majority of the network enforces.
reply