Author: John Dillon 2013-11-13 20:01:27
Published on: 2013-11-13T20:01:27+00:00
Last week a writeup about "On the optimal block size and why transaction fees are 8 times too low (or transactions 8 times too big)" was posted. Peter Todd made some nice additions to it including different pool sizes into the numbers. He claims on IRC that he is writing a paper of some kind on this topic. The author suggests he submit it to the crypto-currency thing the foundation is sponsoring. The fork frequency and the average block size are easily measurable. blockchain.info keeps historical graphs of the number of orphaned blocks per day. But the author raises a concern about the accuracy of these stats as no pool operators have confirmed if the orphaned blocks that blockchain.info reports match their own records.The author argues that all orphans should be relayed to even the playing field, and if there is a circumstance where we do not want the attacker to have that knowledge, we have failed anyway, as blockchain.info's sybil attack on the network clearly shows. The all-important number is alpha, the network latency which is expected to be dependent on various things such as interconnectivity, bandwidths, software quality, etc., where mainly the latter is within our hands to bring down the fee.With relayed orphans, P2Pool could enforce an optimal tx inclusion policy based on a statistical model by including proof of those orphans into the P2Pool share chain. P2Pool needs to take fees into account soon, but simply asking for blocks with the highest total fees or even the highest fee/kb appears to be incomplete according to what the author's and Peter's analysis is suggesting.
Updated on: 2023-06-07T20:08:38.525966+00:00