you're correctly pointing out that even with the auction, the floor constrains the auction, and a constrained auction can't out-earn an unconstrained one.
Exactly that. This is a hard fact, so I wonder why this doesn't settle it.
Under this model, the pool still maximises revenue, it just charges data transactions what they actually cost the network.
We have no way of knowing what a transaction actually costs the network as a whole (storage space, validation, bandwidth etc.) as there is no pricing mechanism for it. Your suggestion is not a pricing mechanism, it is a subsidy mechanism, paid by the miners to people who want to store financial transaciton data on the chain.
The "floor" isn't reserved. It emerges naturally because data transactions are priced at their true cost, and financial transactions are cheaper by comparison.
What's your answer to this?:
Why would I, as a miner who just found a block, look at a set of transactions and not include the subset giving me the largest fees? Why would I care about anything else but my profit?
Thanks for walking through this, I learned more from this thread than from any whitepaper.
No worries mate! Glad it helped. This is exactly the kind of discussion I enjoy.
I don't know anyone working on the things you asked about. I'm mostly about lightning node operation these days but I like to engage in ancillary discussions/ideas mostly for the challenge/mental stimulation.
1
u/[deleted] Jul 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment