1. Why do larger mining pools have less orphans, assuming most miners even small ones are connected to the relay network?
2. Even if mining pools set higher fees, aren't the unconfirmed TX's still added to their mempools?
3. How is it that 1MB just "happened" to be the magic number at which blocks are deemed to be "large" ?
2. Even if mining pools set higher fees, aren't the unconfirmed TX's still added to their mempools?
3. How is it that 1MB just "happened" to be the magic number at which blocks are deemed to be "large" ?
1. Larger pools solve more blocks, smoothing out the orphan variance experienced by smaller ones.
2. Verifying the new tx incoming blocks contain has nothing to do with tx in mempools, which are waiting to be included in subsequent blocks. Mining pools may choose to include or exclude tx based on fees, and individual implementations constantly adjust.
3. Time to verify (via CPU-hard although parallelizable ECDSA) incoming block's tx is already (absent clusters of 48-core Xeons) problematic at sizes near 1MB, hence use of the subjective descriptor "large" and your conflation of that term with "full."
Gmax, did I get these right? Can I get paid the big LeBron bucks now?
