Always let your own transactions into blocks you create
My free tx #97
pull gavinandresen wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:master from gavinandresen:myFreeTx changing 1 files +4 −0-
gavinandresen commented at 10:55 PM on March 4, 2011: contributor
-
If a transaction is from 'me', or offers 'me' at least the minimum fee directly, allow it into the block without a regular fee cb24f8a003
-
jhyslop commented at 7:58 AM on March 6, 2011: none
There are a couple of major problems with this change - which isn't necessary in the first place.
First off, the transaction will not get accepted into the memory pool, because AcceptToMemoryPool verifies that the transaction has enough fees embedded in it to satisfy GetMinFee(). But when you created the transaction, you suppressed those fees.
Even if you applied similar modifications to AcceptToMemoryPool, no other node will accept your transaction, because the other nodes will <i>not</i> suppress the calculation of GetMinFee(). That means that only your node will attempt to put the transaction into a block. Unless you're running one of those multi-GH/s nodes, it could be months before you win the crap shoot and generate the block. And that's assuming that the node even generates blocks to begin with. You can't assume that every node will be generating blocks - I turn off coin generation on my MacBook because I don't want to overstress the CPU if I can help it.
In any case, the code change is not necessary. If you do happen to be the lucky guy who generates the block containing your own transactions, then the transaction fees all go into your wallet, making your own transactions free.
-
gavinandresen commented at 5:43 PM on March 7, 2011: contributor
I agree this isn't necessary and encourages anti-social behavior (transmitting fee-less transactions and hoping that either you'll generate a block to include them or somebody else will accept them).
-
jhyslop commented at 3:01 AM on April 11, 2011: none
In the Bitcoin forums, Luke-Jr showed me that my analysis was incorrect. This patch works "as advertised" (so to speak) and will cause no harm including it. Whether or not it is anti-social is a wider community decision :-)
In any case, I think this pull request can be reopened.
- glv2 referenced this in commit 7c72d6f695 on Apr 15, 2014
- glv2 referenced this in commit 8fd1711819 on Jul 24, 2014
- destenson referenced this in commit 2f22c6ec13 on Jun 26, 2016
- ashotkhachatryan referenced this in commit a10f1076b7 on Sep 25, 2017
- 0xartem referenced this in commit baadea2e95 on Jan 9, 2018
- 0xartem referenced this in commit 7ed9cae620 on Jan 12, 2018
- CryptAxe referenced this in commit 910398a89a on May 14, 2018
- cryptapus referenced this in commit 1c834c973b on Aug 20, 2018
- Losangelosgenetics referenced this in commit 6dbf89297e on Mar 12, 2020
- cryptapus referenced this in commit 7f6816fdbb on May 3, 2021
- DrahtBot locked this on Sep 8, 2021
