It is a secret list.   You will find out when your account is frozen.

What could possibly go wrong with unelected third parties using secret internal list to seize the property of others without oversight or accountability? 

Once again making a distinction of paying vs non paying is dubious.

1 satoshi is paying.

If every transaction had a 1 satoshi fee the avg block would contain 0.0000008 in fees.
The entire network annually would produce ~ 0.0292 BTC in fees.

So paying vs non paying is a dubious distinction.

Going forward (once I have modified bitcoind and tested it) I will be excluding ALL transaction with < 0.01 BTC in fees.  I will also share the patch as open source and encourage other miners to adopt similar minimum fee rules (although each miner could choose a different amount).

Do you believe I should not be allowed to exclude fees I consider insufficient?  
More generally:  Do miners have a right to charge that amount they expect in an open and free marketplace for fees?  

People like to use the term boycotting (as in the above post).  If no tx had a fee of 0.01 BTC+ and as a resulted I mined a 1 tx block would that be boycotted.  What if I included a single dummy tx of my own (1 BTC from me to me with 0.01 BTC fee to me)?

Really have you looked at the last dozen or so blocks?

90%+ are free and 0% have a fee of 0.01 or higher.  So 100% are free or so worthless as to be essentially free.

So you saying "miners can set their own fees" is a blatant lie if the same miner is then forced to include free (and near free) tx.  If clients know miners are forced to include their freeloading tx what is the incentive for them to pay a realistic fee.

Of course that ignores all the timing attacks, orphaned blocks, and network latency issues any such proposal will have.  A hint: there is no unified view of the network.  Propogation delays ensure parts of the network are always out of sync.  So a miner cutting it close risks having some nodes see the block as valid but others (who just picked up new tx) see it as invalid.

Also it makes tx processing less efficient.  Most pools don't update getworks when new tx arrive however to meet the 25% treshold (which is likely 50% threshold just to be safe) they would either need to issue an LP on every tx and include even MORE free tx so that as new tx arrive they stay above the safe limit.

Essentially all that combined means miners have no pricing power (they already have very little).  All this to solve a non-problem.  Sorry no thanks.

Yeah 6ft is way too long for that kind of current.  If you want 6ft cables then they should be 16 (or even better 14) gauge wire.   Also I wish you had a better PSU.  Even with 30W or so lost due to excessive wiring the efficiency seems very low for 80Plus-Gold unit.  You don't by any chance have any xfx, seasonics, antecs or other tier 1 supplier PSU lying around do you?

If those tx are free I am forced to include them or have my block rejected? 

Where do people get this idea you have the right to have your free or cheap ass (1/10th of a penny) tx forced into the next block.

Your img is broken.

Forget that.  You do understand the logical end game is that miners have no pricing power (they already have very little).

You can set your prices but if nobody agrees to them then you lose the potential block reward.  Thus the one is forced to accept free & no fee tx and clients would be stupid to ever pay a fee (or more than a token fee).

Also not sure if you see the logical fail in your "proposal".
I set my fee to 100 BTC.  I send a tx w/ 100 BTC to myself and include it in my block.  Tada that block is now valid right?  I never mine any tx except my own.  Kinda bypasses any security such an asinine protocol rule would create.

How do you know?  Have you tried?

A more practical example is that in the near future I will be only including tx w/ fee of 0.01 BTC.  Now about 90% of blocks will be empty (looking at past record of tx).  Do you think I shouldn't be allowed to do that?

What if "mystery" simply has an unrealistic min fee (say 100 BTC per tx)?  Is he not allowed to do that.

It comes down to:
Do miners have the right to set the min fee for tx they will include in the next block?
If no then I will fight any proposal you try to cram down the throats of miners.  If yes then that will lead to genuine empty blocks.  How do you penalize "bad" empty blocks from blocks which are empty simply because users are cheap?


I'd be willing to bet $100 of my own real money that this is a botnet.  The evidence so far points seriously towards a botnet that operates by distributing only the bare minimum of information (the previous block's hash) to the nodes, which then generate a valid block themselves and try hashes.  If anyone can provide convincing proof that this is something else, I will mail the first person to do so a check or send them the equivalent in BTC.
[/quote]

First a service is provided.  It adds nearly 15% hashing power to the network.  The network is harder to attack at 11.5 TH/s vs 10.0 TH/s.


Those two statements are mutually exclusive. 

How do you know the "mystery" miner isn't doing that.  It just happens to be his fee threshold is 100 BTC.

More realisticly say I wanted to only include tx which have a fee of 0.01 BTC or more.  Most blocks would have no tx.  How do you reconcile the statements a miner should be able to set fee BUT not include empty blocks?  What if no tx match the desired fee?

Need clarification on how p2pool builds a block header.

Does this sound right?
1) p2ool uses RPC call "getmemorypool" to get block components from bitcoind
2) p2pool generates coinbase transaction from current sharechain
3) p2pool generates merkle tree (combining tx from bitcoind w/ coinbase from sharechain).
4) p2pool issues block headers to miners via getwork call (prior block, timestamp, merkle tree root, difficulty)

Right?  Wrong?  Clarifications?

My comment was more a warning.  Bitcoin is 0.x for a reason.  I don't want to discourage adoption but there are significant challenges and not all of them technical.  A major business having coins frozen would be a PR disaster for Bitcoin it would undermine all the claims we make.   The reality is not all businesses are ready for Bitcoin because Bitcoin isn't ready for all businesses.  I think a slow increase in adoption in terms of users, merchants, software, etc is the best path.  

In time I think any challenge can be resolved.  It likely will require a lawsuit when certain exchange freezes the wrong account and a six or seven figure settlement but it will be resolved.

Sorry for the semi-derail.  Just been a hard day with some wanting to force miners to include tx and exchanges up to the iodiocy of freezing accounts based on secret lists.  

51% of miners follow a list which says tx A must be included.
49% of miners follow a list which don't.

It is no different than a 51% "attack".

The 49% may solve a block BUT that block will be ignored by the miners in camp "A".  Eventually the A camp will pull ahead and orphan all the blocks of the 49%.

So say current block height #123
Both camp A & camp B work on block #124.
A miner in camp B solves block #124 but it is missing tx from "A" list.
Miners in camp A invalidate block #124 and continue to build off of #123.

Due to variance "camp b" may pull ahead temporarily but just like a 51% attack eventually camp A will pull ahead and orphan the chain supported by the "B" miners.

This means whatever list is used by 51% must be used by all miners.  That gives massive power to those who control a lot of hashing power like the Big 3 pools.  If the Big 3 pools make "list A" they even miner is defacto forced to use it.  To not use it is economic suicide as any block the mine which is not in compliance with the "list A" risks being orphaned.  No miners is going to take that chance.  All miners will be forced to follow the rules set by the Big 3.

The Big 3 then could decide not to share the list with all miners (permanent mining exclusion unless the excluded gain 51% of hashing power), charge fees for inclusion (think of it as a pool fee but they don't even have to provide a pool), or share "hidden tx" between themselves to orphan out miners not paying to mine.  If only those paying for access to the list know of the list and hidden tx then outside miners can't even hope to compete by including all tx (even every free one) blindly hoping to make a compliant block.  Even if they include all tx they know of they will be missing the hidden ones.

Haplo please learn the protocol before you try to "fix it".

Unless your tx is considered spam (under the 1 day & 1 BTC threshold)  there is no need for a fee and confirmation times are routinely the next block.

Of course they would.  Whatever list is used by 51% of miners will orphan out any other chain. 

That is the whole point.  We don't know.

If Mt.Gox policy was "we will freeze account and seek account information when facing court order or legislative requirement" we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

there policy is they will freeze accounts which may seem suspicious based on whatever they feel is suspicious and release funds based on whatever they decide is good enough.

The first is called due process, the second is called bullshit.

Say I sold you a video card and you paid me then I said wait these coins are tainted I need to freeze them based on my internal policy of coins looking suspicious and stuff.  I then demand you provide me say photocpies of your ID, your mothers maiden name, your SSN, full address, phone numbers and everything else I need to commit identity fraud.   When you say no well I guess I need to keep those funds frozen.  They Police might want them.  Sorry.

You would be getting me a scammer tag overnight.  However Mt.Gox does the same thing and people fall in line and say "they have to".  Really?

Why would a rational miner want to allow free tx forever?

Thanks for explaining it theymos but I like it less now with the explanation.  

For example in the last block:

http://blockchain.info/block-index/197728/0000000000000628467e112dd0aca3b6e5abbdd12cbd1b79074c446e85a2689d

there was 0 tx with a fee of 0.01 or higher?

So if majority of miners include a list with these tx I am forced:
a) to mine for nothing
b) to risk my block being considered invalid

Horrible idea.  Mining should be an open free market and if I don't want to include any tx without a sufficient fee I should be able to.  

More centralization for nothing.

If DeepBit and Slush built a shared list they could
a) determine pricing of entire bitcoin economy
b) force other pools to pay for access to the list or risk them building invalid blocks
c) to aid in b they could witholding tx from the list and publish them only to subscribers (if you don't pay you can't mine)

To support rjk, WWII spawned a whole host of computers to do everything from breaking German codes to designing better bomber targeting scopes.

When there are conflicting lists?
When the list contains free tx and I as a miner don't want to include them?

Wouldn't it be in the best interest of free-loader nodes to publish and follow lists which put all free tx into the required list thus ensure free tx on the backs of miners?

It comes down to a fundamental question:
Do miners have a right to set the price for their services and thus indirectly choose which tx are included in the block they are working on?

Specified by whom?  The person who solved the last block?  If so why aren't the transactions in their block?

But it is my choice right?  Or is the choice on what is an acceptable fee decided by the cental agency of bitcoin fees? I have a right to charge whatever amount I want for my hashing power.  Do you agree?  As the subsidies decline the market will be more competitive but it is still my choice.

If tx MUST be included then does that include all free tx.  Am I now forced to include all free tx?  What incentive is there for a user to pay any fee then?

Does it include all tx w/ a fee?  If so then why every pay more than 1 satoshi?
Does it include all tx w/ a "minimum defined" fee?  Say 0.0005 BTC.  If so then why would any user pay more?

If someone says you must include 25% of all pending transactions... well what if those transactions are below my processing cost (because the users are cheap bastards)?  I am forced to include them or lose the block?  Really?