Can you explain a bit about the mechanism wherein the miner pays into the rollover pool, and why that is different from the 'original proposal'? It is not obvious why this dictinction makes a difference. It seems to still incentivize out of chain payments to miners for transaction inclusion regardless of whether it is paid by the miner, or deducted from the miner's reward, both are dependent on the fees in the block (which aren't there in out of block payments schemes).
I think the penalty is not dependent on the fee:
The miner of a large block must pay a penalty that depends on the block's size.
So it still has to be paid regardless of wether or not the tx fee payment was on- or off-chain.
This is penalty then ONLY taken from the coinbase reward and not also TX fees?
How would this method survive the successive halvings (much less the eventual cessation)?
The penalty will be deducted from the funds he collects in the generation transaction
I read that as "from reward, tx fees and rollover pool input".
Thanks for that, it was my reading also.
Thus TX fees that are not in the block but paid out of band are not subject to penalty...
Another difference, is that in the Monero method, the penalty can not reduce the block reward to below zero and make the block invalid.
There are many similarities, but also some important differences with the time tested Monero method and the current proposal.