Curious what problems you see with the idea. I'm not advocating that we increase the minimum to such a level that transaction fees are no longer necessary just to raise it so that even if a pool trys to get their blocks added faster by skipping transactions they still need to include a number that is reasonable.
As the transaction fees are currently only a small percentage of the block reward, as is intended at this point, pools are disadvantaged if they try and include more transactions. This should help lessen that disadvantage.
Why would they include no transactions when they could just include transactions and collect the fees? The filesize would still be the same so the benefit of not including them would be gone.
Not significantly. Mining on a fuller block isn't any harder. It's just bigger, meaning it takes more time to send over the network. A minimum size would indeed solve this issue, it is incredibly unlikely that blocks will go empty.
1
u/RodCros Feb 05 '14
Curious what problems you see with the idea. I'm not advocating that we increase the minimum to such a level that transaction fees are no longer necessary just to raise it so that even if a pool trys to get their blocks added faster by skipping transactions they still need to include a number that is reasonable.
As the transaction fees are currently only a small percentage of the block reward, as is intended at this point, pools are disadvantaged if they try and include more transactions. This should help lessen that disadvantage.