Encouraging Miners to Include Transactions

[bytemaster]

so, is this an effort trying to solve the too-many-empty-blocks-in-pts-blockchain problem?

It is an attempt to prevent the 51% DOS attack, yes.

[marketp2p]

so, is this an effort trying to solve the too-many-empty-blocks-in-pts-blockchain problem?

[bytemaster]

This is definitely interesting, but people could probably game the system easily if they just added a bunch of transactions between addresses that they own, lowering the difficulty of the block while maintaining control over their funds

The problem is they destroy their coinage every time they do this.  It isn't the transaction or size of the transaction that counts, but the coinage destroyed that matters.  So if they have a large balance, it may take weeks to accumulate enough coinage to reduce the difficulty on a single block by a meaningful number.

I agree that the algorithm for picking the best chain should factor in coinage destroyed.  Using coinage destroyed to settle Orphans would only affect a small percent of transactions.

[phoenix]

This is definitely interesting, but people could probably game the system easily if they just added a bunch of transactions between addresses that they own, lowering the difficulty of the block while maintaining control over their funds

[FreeTrade]

This does sound interesting - got to be careful there is no way for miners to game it, or to introduce incentives for miners not to share transactions - there's a fine balance.

Or perhaps when considering chains of equal sizes, clients could favour chains that include more transactions in the last block - that way the orphan is much more likely to be the block with fewer transactions. May not even require a fork.
 

[bytemaster]

Sounds interesting.

But since that we cannot know how much coinage is destroyed in my current block,
maybe that can be the 'luck' in lucky mining?

You always know how many coinage are destroyed based upon trx included.

[麥可貓]

Sounds interesting.

But since that we cannot know how much coinage is destroyed in my current block,
maybe that can be the 'luck' in lucky mining?

[bytemaster]

In Bitcoin land people pay transaction fees as the incentive for miners to include transactions; however, ProtoShares has shown that these fees are not always enough and that network latency advantage might be more important than the fees.

To solve this problem in future chains, I believe we can use the coinage consumed metric to dynamically reduce the difficulty of finding a block by as much as 50%.    The more coinage days that are destroyed by the block, the easier it gets to mine.

The net effect is that mining is now proof-of-past-stake combined with proof-of-future-stake due to the vesting period.  Spending a lot of old coins will therefore result in faster transactions because it will dramatically reduce the difficulty of finding the next block. 

With this in play, the situation with y pool would be far less likely to occur because their miners would insist they include transactions.