Redundant transactions in blocks in the same layer

[lrettig]

Following on our conversation in this thread:

barakshani we get redundancy, but how much would depend on the number of transactions waiting in the mempool. Given the number of (average) blocks in a layer and the limit of transaction per block (so basically given the limit of transactions in a layer), there is some number of transactions in the mempool for which we don't expect to get duplications at all (if the limit of transactions in a layer is n, then once there are roughly n^2 transactions in the mempool, we expect no duplications)

@barakshani what happens when there is < n transactions in the mempool? Don't all of the blocks in a layer basically contain the same set of transactions then? Nothing would break, but it just seems like a lot of redundant data storage doesn't it?

[barakshani]

yes. correct. we may have dynamic tx selection, so miners won't feel there entire block with all the txs (just because of this redundancy)