mimblewimble team mailing list archive

[Casey Rodarmor <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry, last bullet point should be:

• It incentivizes pooled mining, since *users* will probably only
submit transactions to the top N accelerators, if you're not in the
top N pools, you're incentivized to join one to maximize your fees

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:21 PM, Casey Rodarmor <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Fernando Nieto <fernandonm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Once blocks are full, even if you only burn part of the fees, what makes
>> you think users will publish transactions with a fee greater than
>> MIN_FEE, instead of sending a MIN_FEE transaction to a known miner and
>> then splitting the rest of the fee (that would otherwise be burnt)
>> between them?
>
> I'm curious what others think of this, but to me this is a really
> strong argument against burning fees.
>
> This would incentivize every miner to run transaction accelerators,
> which seems bad on a few fronts:
>
> • Accelerators are bad for privacy, since they give miners a chance to
> associate IPs with transactions
>
> • Accelerators require a bit of extra infrastructure, which means that
> miners won't be able to switch frictionlessly to and from mining Grin
>
> • It incentivizes pooled mining, since unless will probably only
> submit transactions to the top N accelerators, so if you're not in the
> top N pools, you're incentivized to join one to maximize your fees