As I perceive it, coverage guidelines in Bitcoin are primarily designed to forestall different customers from abusing node sources.
Nonetheless, what if we launched a proof-of-work requirement for transactions which can be at the moment thought of non-standard?
The concept is that requiring PoW for such transactions would impose a value on customers making an attempt to relay them, doubtlessly decreasing abuse.
Would this strategy be possible or useful?
The objective could be to create a extra correct and inclusive mempool view. At present, non-standard transactions are typically included in blocks, however as a result of common nodes do not relay them, they are not seen in most mempools. May a PoW requirement assist customary nodes relay these transactions whereas nonetheless deterring abuse?
As I perceive it, coverage guidelines in Bitcoin are primarily designed to forestall different customers from abusing node sources.
Nonetheless, what if we launched a proof-of-work requirement for transactions which can be at the moment thought of non-standard?
The concept is that requiring PoW for such transactions would impose a value on customers making an attempt to relay them, doubtlessly decreasing abuse.
Would this strategy be possible or useful?
The objective could be to create a extra correct and inclusive mempool view. At present, non-standard transactions are typically included in blocks, however as a result of common nodes do not relay them, they are not seen in most mempools. May a PoW requirement assist customary nodes relay these transactions whereas nonetheless deterring abuse?
