Ouch, today someone made a transaction with over $500k fee.

[franky1]

No one is talking about anyone demanding a refund, but whether it would be a moral thing to do from the recipient's perspective.

It would of course be the right thing to do from the sender's perspective. But is it the right thing to do from the individual miners' perspective? They have honestly mined a valid transaction, and now their pool operator is denying them the profits? Should it really be up to the pool operator at all? Should each individual miner not get to decide what to do with their share of the excess fee which they earned honestly?

you really dont know bitcoin do you

miners dont mine transactions
miners just hash a hash of a block

its the pool operator that manages everything. so yes they as managers decide everything

miners have no control over what transactions go into a block nor what level of fee transactions have.. pools decide all that and pools decide what pay out strategy to offer and what is deemed a valid hash, share the workers present as their work..

its like employment
workers get paid a wage decided by their boss, workers have no control over what the manager decides the product is worth when it presents the end product to a consumer.

at this moment. fees are not treated as a wage. they are treated as a gratuity bonus, the salary is the main blockreward(6.25btc)

[1715282123]

1715282123

[1715282123]

1715282123

[1715282123]

1715282123

[pawel7777]

It would of course be the right thing to do from the sender's perspective. But is it the right thing to do from the individual miners' perspective? They have honestly mined a valid transaction, and now their pool operator is denying them the profits? Should it really be up to the pool operator at all? Should each individual miner not get to decide what to do with their share of the excess fee which they earned honestly?

I 100% agree on this aspect. As I mentioned before, I can't understand how F2Pool could make such gesture without asking participating miners for permission (unless they have it covered in Terms of Service, which I doubt).
So I think refunding it is a moral thing to do in general, but everyone entitled to that fee should make that decision themselves. You can't make good deeds with other peoples money.

[franky1]

entitlement to fee's is not contractual part of miners payout. because its not the miners that decide what transactions and fee's are included in a block. a pool manager can if they want do "empty blocks" or only include transactions with 1sat.. and miners have no say.. all a miner can do is pool hop to a different pool

[tjtonmoy]

I am still uncertain what to make out of this incident. There are many possibilities as to why this happened. As long as we don't hear from the person who made that transaction we can say anything for sure. A sick joke, a way to send rewards to the miners, a case of hacking, human error, some faulty script, an old transaction getting through now, or is it Satoshi himself sending free money to people? Well, we can say many things about this but we will never know the real reason.

I guess as long as the person who made this transaction comes forward the sender and receiver can't come to a common ground whether to refund it or to keep it to themselves.

[Cricktor]

...

It has been quite likely faulty software as was already suggested earlier in this thread. The sending address has 69+k transactions and isn't very old. It doesn't look like some human doing some strange error. It would be nice and maybe a bit entertaining if Paxos would publish what kind of edge case caused this and how their error happened. Unfortunately this won't happen.

Many many thousands of transactions of this address went through without excessive transaction fees. Whatever triggered this fault, clearly there were no sanity checks by software or human controller to detect and avoid ridiculous overpaying fee or other desastrous quirks.

[Fatunad]

...

It has been quite likely faulty software as was already suggested earlier in this thread. The sending address has 60+k transactions and isn't very old. It doesn't look like some human doing some strange error. It would be nice and maybe a bit entertaining if Paxos would publish what kind of edge case caused this and how their error happened. Unfortunately this won't happen.

Many many thousands of transactions of this address went through without excessive transaction fees. Whatever triggered this fault, clearly there were no sanity checks by software or human controller to detect and avoid ridiculous overpaying fee or other desastrous quirks.

On an address which it isnt really that too old and making about 60k transaction then i would say that it isnt something a human being on having that kind of on hold and control of such address yet making those transactions which in numbers alone which you could definitely say that it is really that something automated. Majority of comments and words been read up talking about fat finger which it is really that a common issue
but just like been said that having this kind of behavior in regarding transactions then it is really that operated with software and its true that Paxos wont really be tending to make things clear about on how did
this error comes possible or something that happened because it would really be reflecting out their negligence if ever there are really some lapses when it comes to software maintenance or updates which
we know that it is really that very crucial in speaking about its function and really that getting attached with processing transactions which is something that needs to be that maintained and would be checked
out so that there would be no next problems in regarding about this.

[pawel7777]

entitlement to fee's is not contractual part of miners payout. because its not the miners that decide what transactions and fee's are included in a block. a pool manager can if they want do "empty blocks" or only include transactions with 1sat.. and miners have no say.. all a miner can do is pool hop to a different pool

What is or isn't part of "contractual" payout obligations is subject to contract (aka Terms of Service) if there's any. If the pool operator obliged themselves to share fees with participating miners, then they should do it. Whether or not miners' could take legal actions if the pool fails to do that is a different story.
Pool operator having the power to include/exclude fee is irrelevant (they have a financial incentive to do so though). If the fee is earned - it should be shared (unless agreed otherwise).