Quote from: JFC on December 12, 2016, 05:48:17 PM

I am not sure the matter is settled however. The under-the-table fees problem both proposals present does not imply there is no merit in the system at all, IMHO.

Fees could be given in full to the miner responsible for creating the next block. This would further incentivize said miner not to dissappear during his turn(s). This could encourage a market for fees between the miner and the user, since the mining turns would be deterministic.

Or fees could be removed completely from the Tac phase de facto if all the miners decide to cheat.
All the fees could be negotiated out of band. So what?

Or maybe other possibilities (like enforcing a fair insertion rule of transactions in full blocks).

Or maybe someone will come up with a bright idea.

It is comforting to know that you will be here, encouraging people to share it with us with your nice tone and praise.

Keep up the good work!

You are the one who needs to do more work on proving the security of your idea before you bring it public for discussion. Do you think our expert time is free and unlimited to peer review every NAOD. The problem with posting undeveloped ideas is you cause other n00bs to proclaim that you've found a Holy Grail. It is a mad n00b epidemic of disinformation.

As you dig into the game theory of sharing fees and minted block rewards, you will find out why your idea can't be incentives compatible. You need to factor in all the game theory of attacks that those who create blocks can do. For example, do you share minted block rewards equally between blocks that have no transactions from those who do? Then study the problem with Bitcoin when rewards become dependent on fees. And pull all that together say, "Kaboom". It is left as a homework assignment for you.