Mining Codex

[phelix]

1.) Relaying
All valid blocks and valid txs will be relayed asap.

2.) First in, first mined
Transactions will not be replaced by double spends with higher fees unless otherwise labeled in the first place.
(This makes accepting 0 confirmation tx a little safer.)

3.) Equality of coins
All coin shall be equal. Coins that might be considered tainted will be mined like normal coins.
(The users should decide about taint not the miners.)

4.) Priority TXs
A certain percentage / fixed amount of kb (t.b.d.) per block will be reserved to high priority TX as long as they pay at least the standard fee.

5.) For Satoshi's sake, I will only mine at pools of 25% hashrate or less.
Yes, the safety margin is necessary.

The rules are for both pools operators and miners. It's the miner's responsibility to be aware of what their pool is doing.

Note the codex is less restrictive than the current standard behavior in the classic client. (The sole difference being that high priority tx are mined for free in the classic client).

[Edited multiple times for clarity.]

[1714169093]

1714169093

[1714169093]

1714169093

[1714169093]

1714169093

[1714169093]

1714169093

[1714169093]

1714169093

[phelix]

Something like this might be a good idea to agree on should mining become even more centralized. This is only meant to get out the concept.

[GoldSeal]

eeeewwwww..... he said taint....

[phelix]

eeeewwwww..... he said taint....

Exactly. Face the truth. 

[GoldSeal]

Face the taint...

[TierNolan]

2.) First in, first mined
Transactions will not be replaced by double spends with higher fees.
(This makes accepting 0 confirmation tx a little safer.)

Maybe allow transactions be marked that they want to be replaceable.  For example, if they use the locktime.

[phelix]

2.) First in, first mined
Transactions will not be replaced by double spends with higher fees.
(This makes accepting 0 confirmation tx a little safer.)

Maybe allow transactions be marked that they want to be replaceable.  For example, if they use the locktime.

check

[phelix]

As of 2013-05-05 the Mining Codex describes what most pools are actually doing. The pools are starting to experiment, though:

BTC Guild started setting up a new server this morning running modified block rules.  Currently trying out a 500,000 byte maxblocksize.  The problem is with larger blocks, you increase the chance of orphans since it will take at least twice as long to propagate, if not more.  I've modified the fee settings to prefer fee based transactions when increasing the block size past 50 KB, so hopefully the increase in fees per block offset the orphan rate increase.

What do you mean you have modified the fee settings? Were you not doing what the Bitcoin client has always been doing? In other words: 27kB for storing high-priority transactions (regardless of the fee), and the remainder of the block always preferring fee-based transactions.

The old settings were default, with the 250,000 byte limit, 27k for high-priority (regardless of fee).  The new settings we're trying (subject to change, and not on all servers yet) is 500kB block max size, no reserved space for no-fee transactions with high priority, and a minimum size set to 50 kB to grab high priority/no-fee transactions if there aren't that many unconfirmed paid transactions.

[phelix]

Luke just made me aware of https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Getblocktemplate which might make a Mining Codex obsolete....

[phelix]

Bump: Mining Codex now for both pools and miners.

[phelix]

Peter Todd: F2Pool enabled full replace-by-fee (RBF) support after discussions with me.

Luckily f2pool changed their mind due to public pressure.

[phelix]

And another one from Peter Todd: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3bka9i/upetertodd_is_trying_to_get_full_replacebyfee/  

edit: Satoshi describing zero conf payments: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819