pull down to refresh

The simplest one to describe is only allowing zero-fee transactions if the transaction has fewer outputs than inputs, in the hope of incentivizing a reduction of the UTXO set size.

That might be too simple. This would e.g., break incentives as follows:

  • Miners would be incentivized to skip inclusions of consolidatory txs, and instead only include transactions that create additional outputs, because those pay fees.
  • If Miners do accept consolidatory txs for free, senders might bank a few extra outputs and then send large batched payment transactions with a bunch of extra inputs to make them free.
103 sats \ 1 reply \ @adlai 9 Jul
That might be too simple. This would e.g., break incentives as follows:

it has been an honor, postponing this response to a criticism of my trite oversimplifications by @Murch

let's hope I don't abuse the privilege more often than can be reasonably avoided by not making stupid suggestions to begin with!


honestly, I don't have any strong criticism of the aversion to any soft incentive depending on the anachronism of tolerance for some zero-fee consumption of blockspace by aligned participants.

the only undisputable anecdotes I can think of before my perversely-priced cheapness of speech drops out of relevance is that during one of the spam attacks, people were doing things like dusting onto the brainwallet generated from passphrase cat.... if someone likes leaving so many breadcrumbs that miners become brainflay afictionados, then the network should probably have some way of eventually baring fangs against consensus-legal preferences that rise to meet Jevon's Law like it's a schoolyard challenge.

the only good news might be that such changes will always be soft forks.

reply
18 sats \ 0 replies \ @Murch 10 Jul

It’s not a stupid suggestion. It’s just harder to get right than one might think at first glance. Putting ideas out there to get people to comment on them is how we make progress at figuring it out.

reply