bitcoin
New BIP: Logarithm of transaction fee limits block size
What is the subject of the bitcoin-dev mailing list discussion of this proposal?
Technical soundness: What prevents miners from providing inputs to coinjoin with for fake fees?
Backward compatibility: Talks about a hardfork if "everything applied", but I don't see that in the specification.
Changed to BIP-XXXX
Mailing List: Not yet sent. I just subscribed to the mailing list. Will do that the next few days.
Technical soundness: The same thing that prevents that today. (Not exactly sure though what you meant.) The incentive of miners is to fill the block only with transactions of largest fees, same as today, there is no incentive to put 1sat/byte transaction into the chain when the block can be filled with 30sat/byte transactions.
Backward compatibility: Improved Text
Mailing List: For the future, please see BIP 2 - mailing list discussion comes before opening a PR or asking for a number assignment.
Technical soundness: Today, fees are not used in any consensus-critical checks, other than to allow the miner to claim them and no higher amount. So a miner giving himself a fee is simply a wash. With your proposal, however, miners now can game this new algorithm by giving themselves fees in others' transactions.
(BTW, it's unclear how this works since there is not currently a block size limit, but only a block weight limit. eg, does your algorithm enforce against weight or size?)
Fees come out of unspent satoshis in transactions. A miner cannot just increase fees of a transaction. Such a changed transaction would not be signed correctly. There is no change regarding this.
Block weight vs block size: This is a good question. Some developer more familiar with this should decide that.
CoinJoin is not affected by this BIP. CoinJoin is just a transaction with a known fee. See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/CoinJoin
But CoinJoins do break the assumptions of this BIP (that the fee amount can be known reliably).
Mailing list subject: "new BIP: Self balancing between excessively low/high fees and block size" See April thread
CoinJoin: That's not the case. CoinJoin is not affected by this BIP. (We do not need know what CoinJoin user payed what part of the fee. But we know exactly the total fee of the transaction just like any normal transaction.)
This still has a technical soundness problem (miners fudging fees via CoinJoin) to address before it can be assigned a number, and needs a copyright notice/license.
How is it "staking BTC for a larger block?"
It's not staking if they have nothing to lose.
Didn't know how to describe it better.
It's a fundamental flaw in your proposal...
Didn't know how to describe it better.
It's a fundamental flaw in your proposal...
Disagree.