Discussion is moving quite quickly, so I haven't had time to fully think through the game theory, but please give me your comments and maybe build on the idea.
Miner /u/grmpfpff has
stated
>There will be a penalty for not including a donation, but it cannot be the orphaning of the block.
I wonder if 'soft orphaning' might be an option.
Where a non-cooperating
In my opinion, their blocks will remain orphaned together with that stupid idea of taxing with obligation the miners who refuse, if they have less than 51% they will lose profits
block is created, cooperating miners would choose not to mine on top of it, but start construction of a parallel chain. Where a second consecutive non-cooperating block was created,
cooperating miners would then accept the first non-coop block, but not mine on the second.
Thus
If there are 50% cooperating miners, a new non-coop block has a 25% chance of being
orphaned.
If there are 33% cooperating miners, a new non-coop block has an 11% chance of being orphaned.
**Benefits**
* persistent disincentive to creating non-coop blocks
* no
risk of permanent chain split
* miners free to create block types they prefer with chance they will be included
* persisent cost to those enforcing coop blocks if support is low (risk
As I see divided the community there will probably be a split, unless the perspectives change .. even if I don't have a lot of hash I will do my part
I doubt there will be another split. A split off of Bitcoin Cash is going to die. A miner can easily just go mine something else for profit.
Do your part in causing a slip or in donating funds for the Devs?
of their own blocks being orphaned)
* no large re-orgs necessary
Thanks, yes, it's very similar.
tl;dr If even a slight risk to miner a block could be dropped then a non-zero contribution is rational. Feather forking like this also fixes difficulty gaming.
