Bitcoin miners dropping transactions

In Bitcoin there is less incentive for miners to do their job properly, because unlike Peercoin they have no coin stake invested. They could, if they wanted to, turn the hashing power to another coin in the blink of an eye.

From what I gather, people are not including enough fees in their transactions for it to be profitable for the miners to include the transactions. They rather drop the transactions instead, so that the block can propagate faster and thereby increasing the odds of them winning the block reward.

Even though Peercoin have proof-of-stake, there is no fee that creates an incentive for a minter, to include transactions. Hence there is a chance that we might run into a problem (it’s the tragedy of the commons sort of I guess), or is it? Perhaps it is not? What do you think? Is there something we could do about it?

Is there a reason why minters would drop some specific Peercoin transactions?

It looks like minting doesn’t doesn’t make a difference unless I missed something.

Sounds rather like a good point for PPC no?

May be the 1% stake reward will have to be raised in the future though.

When you have tens of thousands of dollars of massive mining power houses hashing Bitcoin “for-profit” on a large scale. Not confirming transactions in order to give you an exponential millisecond edge with all the asic chips can give you a very small advantage.

A millisecond x 1,000 asic chip for Bitcoin mining = 1 second savings of processing power.

But when you’re running a Peercoin minter, not confirming transactions isn’t an exponential edge anymore. You’d need 1,000 Peercoin nodes (with same owner) not confirming transactions = 1 second savings of minting effort.

It’s not the same. So those massive bitcoin power houses may be dropping transactions. I doubt this is a problem with proof-of-stake and Peercoin.

So yes, we’re better and safe in this regard in my opinion.

Any body notice?

With Peercoin’s price the way it is ($2.06) or so today: May 16 2014) the mining power isn’t being thrown at it quite the same either. So our coin distribution is generally more fair. I don’t think we’d want to be priced quite so high during the distribution of coin phrase anyway.

When you have tens of thousands of dollars of massive mining power houses hashing Bitcoin “for-profit” on a large scale. Not confirming transactions in order to give you an exponential millisecond edge with all the asic chips can give you a very small advantage.

A millisecond x 1,000 asic chip for Bitcoin mining = 1 second savings of processing power.

But when you’re running a Peercoin minter, not confirming transactions isn’t an exponential edge anymore. You’d need 1,000 Peercoin nodes (with same owner) not confirming transactions = 1 second savings of minting effort.

It’s not the same. So those massive bitcoin power houses may be dropping transactions. I doubt this is a problem with proof-of-stake and Peercoin.

So yes, we’re better and safe in this regard in my opinion.

Any body notice?

With Peercoin’s price the way it is ($2.06) or so today: May 16 2014) the mining power isn’t being thrown at it quite the same either. So our coin distribution is generally more fair. I don’t think we’d want to be priced quite so high during the distribution of coin phrase anyway.[/quote]

Hey ppcman, that’s was a great breakdown of the problem. :pbjt:

I also like how you frame the current price level as a boon for the network and I can only agree.

Hmmm, if there only was a place where one could chalk down all of these weaknesses in Bitcoin and how well they are solved with Peercoin. Maybe it would be possible to collect them all and create one of those infographics.

[quote=“pillow, post:1, topic:2385”]In Bitcoin there is less incentive for miners to do their job properly, because unlike Peercoin they have no coin stake invested. They could, if they wanted to, turn the hashing power to another coin in the blink of an eye.

From what I gather, people are not including enough fees in their transactions for it to be profitable for the miners to include the transactions. They rather drop the transactions instead, so that the block can propagate faster and thereby increasing the odds of them winning the block reward.

Even though Peercoin have proof-of-stake, there is no fee that creates an incentive for a minter, to include transactions. Hence there is a chance that we might run into a problem (it’s the tragedy of the commons sort of I guess), or is it? Perhaps it is not? What do you think? Is there something we could do about it?[/quote]

Yea I agree with you, I guess solution would be to give transaction fees to minters/miners and not destroy them.

Is there a reason why minters/miners would process any transaction? Why wouldn’t they just propagate empty block every time? Even if you give them 5% instead of 1% why would they include transactions?

Is there a reason why minters/miners would process any transaction? Why wouldn’t they just propagate empty block every time? Even if you give them 5% instead of 1% why would they include transactions?[/quote]

Is it really possible to propagate empty blocks? Sounds quite curious. I’m not an expert though.