Oddbean new post about | logout
▲ ▼
MF_HODL | 11 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +3 
 Interesting, I guess I like this approach…

But if I were a miner simply optimizing for the most profitable block template, I might not want to split profits evenly with miners who consistently omit the top most profitable txs. Plus the ppl optimizing for profit are the only ones paying a pool fee 😂.

I guess the market will decide if this is acceptable.
▲ ▼
Baz. | 11 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 Yeah. It would be interesting to know the splits between the templates
▲ ▼
Luke Dashjr | 11 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +3 
 The alternative is a centralized system
▲ ▼
MF_HODL | 11 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 Centralized on what layer?

If pool decentralization is your goal, new (or revived) pools constructing blocks with low rewards isn’t going to attract any meaningful hash power.  It’s simply not economically rational for anyone involved.

More pools competing on rewards, features, and specialization is the only way.

If block template decentralization is your goal, then let’s focus on finishing the SV2 spec for block negotiation, and make it easy for pools & miners to use.  The big pools will happily pass that regulatory risk off to the individual miners.