pull down to refresh
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.
reply
Your claim is that miners are considering transactions paying less than
minTxRelayFeerate. The transaction you showed was manually prioritized which indicates that more was paid for it. To support your claim, you should show evidence of a miner picking up transactions with sub-minimum feerates via their block template.I have explained this above already. Just rejecting my argument without showing why I’m wrong is not particularly convincing. You are either arguing in bad faith or you have a tenuous grasp of the context.
reply
I haven't claimed that miners were considering transactions paying less than minTxRelayFeerate (although they might have).
reply
minRelayTxFeerate.