pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 8 replies \ @gregtonoski OP 31 Jan \ parent \ on: Call for nodes reconfiguration: minrelaytxfee=0.00000001 bitcoin_Mining
Miners are of tertiary importance here (if any). The setting is applied by node runners and affects nodes in the first place.
reply
The assumption that a transaction would have never got confirmed is incorrect.
reply
reply
List of them: https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transactions?s=time(desc)&q=fee(0..98),is_coinbase(false)#f=hash,block_id,input_count,output_count,time,output_total,output_total_usd,fee_usd,fee,is_coinbase
Example of such a transaction: https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/49a0efc983b19038cb5aa80008d7b9f7690dfb80de84a55f7aabce9d3137f2fa
reply
I asked for a block with transactions paying less than the minimum feerate at the tail end, because that would indicate that a miner has actually configured their block template building node with a lower minimum feerate.
Your example transaction has a fee of zero and is the first transaction after the coinbase in the block. That indicates that it was prioritized for inclusion, probably due to out-of-band payment. Blockspace being sold out-of-band does not support your claim.
If you want to convince me otherwise, you can show me a block that fulfills those criteria, especially zero fee transactions are not a good start, though.
reply
I think that the example proved that a "transaction paying less than minRelayTxFeerate" may be confirmed. I don't see what else may need to be proved.