AWARD-WINNING

CASINO CRYPTO EXCLUSIVE

CLUBHOUSE 1500+

GAMES 2 MIN

CASH-OUTS 24/7

SUPPORT 100s OF

FREE SPINS PLAY NOW dvertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. dvertised sites are not endorsedbythe Bitcoin Forum. They may beunsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in yourjurisdiction. Advertise here.

newb4now



Offline



Activity: 686

Merit: 500







Hero MemberActivity: 686Merit: 500 Re: [XMR] Monero Speculation September 16, 2015, 05:07:58 PM #8762 Quote from: TrueCryptonaire on September 16, 2015, 05:03:17 PM I finished my math excercies and bought almost 8000 XMR more.



You definitely have been a lot more bullish lately. I am bullish too. There has been a lot of good news. What specific reason cause you to increase your position recently? Personally I am not a gamer but am excited about crypto kingdom anyway because I know others are. I also love all the recent xmr updates in github. You definitely have been a lot more bullish lately. I am bullish too. There has been a lot of good news. What specific reason cause you to increase your position recently? Personally I am not a gamer but am excited about crypto kingdom anyway because I know others are. I also love all the recent xmr updates in github.

TrueCryptonaire



Offline



Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000









LegendaryActivity: 1092Merit: 1000 Re: [XMR] Monero Speculation September 16, 2015, 05:55:07 PM #8764 More than 14 k XMR have been bought today.

There is only one direction and it still is up.

I am buying because the emission curve is now getting steeper and the price is still undervalued.

medusa13



Offline



Activity: 453

Merit: 500



hello world







Sr. MemberActivity: 453Merit: 500hello world Re: [XMR] Monero Speculation September 16, 2015, 06:04:41 PM #8766 Quote from: hodlmybtc on September 16, 2015, 04:19:17 PM

I'm a small fish compared to a lot of you and it's also weird to see that my bids are >10% of the whole bid side, I try my best to increase the liquidity a bit and hopefully earning some BTC/XMR along the way, it would be great if more people would do this, even with small amounts.



in the past many of us did it, we parked every coin we didnt use on the bids. but then polo changed and many of us refused to register with their passports, so it became difficult to get bigger money out of polo.

ever tried to withdrawl 10k with a daily 2k limit? its not fun i tell you, i do not have time for this, so i dont do it at all. this is very sad, but it does not exclude me as a buyer. i am just not able to support the bids like i was used to, but i still buy if price is right.



i am also sacred to deposit big amounts with my 2k withdrawl limit. maybe they will just freeze my account one day and wait for more info since they see me trading big amounts but only withdrawl 2k per day....no no no, way too risky i am sorry.



i do not trust them

in the past many of us did it, we parked every coin we didnt use on the bids. but then polo changed and many of us refused to register with their passports, so it became difficult to get bigger money out of polo.ever tried to withdrawl 10k with a daily 2k limit? its not fun i tell you, i do not have time for this, so i dont do it at all. this is very sad, but it does not exclude me as a buyer. i am just not able to support the bids like i was used to, but i still buy if price is right.i am also sacred to deposit big amounts with my 2k withdrawl limit. maybe they will just freeze my account one day and wait for more info since they see me trading big amounts but only withdrawl 2k per day....no no no, way too risky i am sorry.i do not trust them XMR Monero

ArticMine



Offline



Activity: 2268

Merit: 1041





Monero Core Team







LegendaryActivity: 2268Merit: 1041Monero Core Team Re: [XMR] Monero Speculation September 16, 2015, 06:08:37 PM

Last edit: September 16, 2015, 06:35:14 PM by ArticMine #8767 Quote from: americanpegasus on September 16, 2015, 02:21:52 AM Quote from: ArticMine on September 16, 2015, 01:18:13 AM

The advantage that Monero currently has over virtually every POW coin and this includes Bitcoin, is that Monero has a current working solution to the scaling of blocksize question. One needs two things 1) Adaptive limits 2) A tail emission. Solving this problem without a tail emission is far from obvious, In fact I am not even convinced one can even create a viable fee market in the absence of an emission. There is a reason why there is so little progress with the blocksize debate in Bitcoin.



It sounds like you're saying that it's impossible to solve the blocksize limit without having a tail emission. If that is what you're saying, will you elaborate please?



I do understand that both of those are advantages that Monero has to bitcoin and I think they will play more of a factor going forward.



Also, do you think that Satoshi believed bitcoin could work with transaction-fee only mining and as a deflationary asset... or was it intentionally crippled from the beginning?

It sounds like you're saying that it's impossible to solve the blocksize limit without having a tail emission. If that is what you're saying, will you elaborate please?I do understand that both of those are advantages that Monero has to bitcoin and I think they will play more of a factor going forward.Also, do you think that Satoshi believed bitcoin could work with transaction-fee only mining and as a deflationary asset... or was it intentionally crippled from the beginning?

I will elaborate on this.



The first question one needs to ask before even considering adaptive blocksize limits is: Can a fee market actually work in the absence of a base emission?



1) We first consider a blocksize large enough (or effectively infinite). In this scenario competition among miners will drive fees towards zero since there is no scarcity. This will in turn cause the difficulty and consequently the security of the crypto currency to collapse. We must keep in mind that orphan block based arguments will also fail since these are based on the presence of a base emission. This is in fact the very legitimate fear of the small block proponents.



2) In the second case we consider a fixed blocksize, where the blocksize is small enough to impact fees. In this scenario we have a potentially infinite demand with a fixed supply. In theory fees therefore would go to infinity. We must keep in mind that as the legitimate demand rises towards the fixed limit, It becomes economically attractive for miners with a even small percentage of the hash rate to spam the network in order to profit by raising the overall fees. At this point only external competitive factors can stop the fees from rising to infinity. These take the form of fiat payment methods and other crypto currencies with the latter being not affected by a fixed blocksize limit. The impact of these external competitive factors is to reduce demand by devaluing the entire crypto currency. This will be delayed by miner spam, as miners will increase the spam in order to preserve the dwindling purchasing power of their fees until the system collapses to little or no transaction demand leading the first case above.



The problem as I see it is that the system is inherently unstable. Either the mining revenue collapses first or the purchasing power of the mining revenue collapses first. We now come to the next question. Can one create an adaptive blocksize limit formula that does not converge as time increases towards (1) or (2) above? My instinct tells me no, particularly since the network has no way to measure the key parameter namely the amount of fees collected per block due to out of bound payments to miners. Furthermore there have been many brilliant minds looking at this issue and they have not come up with a solution. Proving this negative, in a rigorous mathematical sense, is of course another matter entirely.



What the tail emission in Monero does is provide a stable anchor outside of the control of the miners on top of which an adaptive blocksize limit and a fee market can actually develop, by avoiding the instability above.



One final note. Why is this posted in the Monero speculation thread? The answer is very simple: Monero is the other crypto currency with the latter being not affected by a fixed blocksize limit above. In the collapsing valuation of (2) the valuation has to go somewhere and there a good possibility that Monero will capture some of this valuation.

I will elaborate on this.The first question one needs to ask before even considering adaptive blocksize limits is: Can a fee market actually work in the absence of a base emission?1) We first consider a blocksize large enough (or effectively infinite). In this scenario competition among miners will drive fees towards zero since there is no scarcity. This will in turn cause the difficulty and consequently the security of the crypto currency to collapse. We must keep in mind that orphan block based arguments will also fail since these are based on the presence of a base emission. This is in fact the very legitimate fear of the small block proponents.2) In the second case we consider a fixed blocksize, where the blocksize is small enough to impact fees. In this scenario we have a potentially infinite demand with a fixed supply. In theory fees therefore would go to infinity. We must keep in mind that as the legitimate demand rises towards the fixed limit, It becomes economically attractive for miners with a even small percentage of the hash rate to spam the network in order to profit by raising the overall fees. At this point only external competitive factors can stop the fees from rising to infinity. These take the form of fiat payment methods andThe impact of these external competitive factors is to reduce demand by devaluing the entire crypto currency. This will be delayed by miner spam, as miners will increase the spam in order to preserve the dwindling purchasing power of their fees until the system collapses to little or no transaction demand leading the first case above.The problem as I see it is that the system is. Either the mining revenue collapses first or the purchasing power of the mining revenue collapses first. We now come to the next question. Can one create an adaptive blocksize limit formula that does not converge as time increases towards (1) or (2) above? My instinct tells me no, particularly since the network has no way to measure the key parameter namely the amount of fees collected per block due to out of bound payments to miners. Furthermore there have been many brilliant minds looking at this issue and they have not come up with a solution. Proving this negative, in a rigorous mathematical sense, is of course another matter entirely.What the tail emission in Monero does is provide a stable anchor outside of the control of the miners on top of which an adaptive blocksize limit and a fee market can actually develop, by avoiding the instability above.One final note. Why is this posted in the Monero speculation thread? The answer is very simple: Monero is theabove. In the collapsing valuation of (2) the valuation has to go somewhere and there a good possibility that Monero will capture some of this valuation. Concerned that blockchain bloat will lead to centralization? Storing less than 4 GB of data once required the budget of a superpower and a warehouse full of punched cards. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card

TrueCryptonaire



Offline



Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000









LegendaryActivity: 1092Merit: 1000 Re: [XMR] Monero Speculation September 16, 2015, 06:55:26 PM

Last edit: September 16, 2015, 07:14:30 PM by TrueCryptonaire #8768



If you start selling, I will intensify my buying.

I am working hard again to increase the market cap of Monero and to make it more appealing speculative asset. I hope there are others who think the same way and are also interested in making money rather than lose it.



I have so many Moneros currently that it is in my best interest to increase the market cap. I have purchased over 15 K XMR today.If you start selling, I will intensify my buying.I am working hard again to increase the market cap of Monero and to make it more appealing speculative asset. I hope there are others who think the same way and are also interested in making money rather than lose it.I have so many Moneros currently that it is in my best interest to increase the market cap.

Melbustus



Offline



Activity: 1694

Merit: 1003









LegendaryActivity: 1694Merit: 1003 Re: [XMR] Monero Speculation September 16, 2015, 07:10:58 PM #8769 Quote from: ArticMine on September 16, 2015, 06:08:37 PM ...

1) ... We must keep in mind that orphan block based arguments will also fail since these are based on the presence of a base emission.

...





As I noted a page or two ago, I see this result in Peter R's paper, but I don't intuitively understand it. Do you? Why is orphan risk any different whether the source of a miner's revenue is a coinbase transaction in a given block vs fees from transactions in a given block? As I noted a page or two ago, I see this result in Peter R's paper, but I don't intuitively understand it. Do you? Why is orphan risk any different whether the source of a miner's revenue is a coinbase transaction in a given block vs fees from transactions in a given block? Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.

smooth



Offline



Activity: 2534

Merit: 1167









LegendaryActivity: 2534Merit: 1167 Re: [XMR] Monero Speculation September 16, 2015, 07:33:48 PM

Last edit: September 16, 2015, 08:17:47 PM by smooth #8770 Quote from: Melbustus on September 16, 2015, 07:10:58 PM Quote from: ArticMine on September 16, 2015, 06:08:37 PM ...

1) ... We must keep in mind that orphan block based arguments will also fail since these are based on the presence of a base emission.

...





As I noted a page or two ago, I see this result in Peter R's paper, but I don't intuitively understand it As I noted a page or two ago, I see this result in Peter R's paper, but I don't intuitively understand it

It is easy to understand. The cost you incur for including another transaction and potentially having your block orphaned is losing the reward, measured against the benefit of another transaction fee. You can try to construct something based on the cost being losing the transaction fee but it becomes a snake eating its own tail.



Also, consider the very first transaction you might add to a block. There is absolutely no downside to adding it even if you gain nothing at all (no reward or previous transaction fees to lose). If a fee market works, it has to work for every single transaction in a block, including the first one.



It is easy to understand. The cost you incur for including another transaction and potentially having your block orphaned is losing the reward, measured against the benefit of another transaction fee. You can try to construct something based on the cost being losing the transaction fee but it becomes a snake eating its own tail.Also, consider the very first transaction you might add to a block. There is absolutely no downside to adding it even if you gain nothing at all (no reward or previous transaction fees to lose). If a fee market works, it has to work for every single transaction in a block, including the first one.

smooth



Offline



Activity: 2534

Merit: 1167









LegendaryActivity: 2534Merit: 1167 Re: [XMR] Monero Speculation September 16, 2015, 07:38:24 PM #8771 Quote from: iCEBREAKER on September 16, 2015, 03:25:16 PM Quote from: dnaleor on September 16, 2015, 02:45:24 PM Quote from: GingerAle on September 16, 2015, 11:04:42 AM Well, the two-birds-one-stone approach to this problem is the subject of my (hopefully forgivable) crusade - to prevent pool mining. If you stop pool mining, you remove the "mining without a node" option. So, miners *have* to run nodes. Thus, if you bring back true solo mining, you bring back incentivizing running a node. Indeed, this was the original model for supporting the network. Pool mining, IMO, is a tragedy of the unregulated commons.



Indeed, I agree. I don't really understand why no coin tried this before.

It wouldn't be that hard to implement I think. You just need to sign your mined block with your private key of the address to where you received the minted coins



Certainly easy in BTC. But also possible with XMR I think.

Indeed, I agree. I don't really understand why no coin tried this before.It wouldn't be that hard to implement I think. You just need to sign your mined block with your private key of the address to where you received the minted coinsCertainly easy in BTC. But also possible with XMR I think.

BBR's Wild Keccak PoW requires a copy of the blockchain, as random bits of it are used in the scratchpad.



That's a huge incentive to run a full node. No node, no (solo) mining.

BBR's Wild Keccak PoW requires a copy of the blockchain, as random bits of it are used in the scratchpad.That's a huge incentive to run a full node. No node, no (solo) mining.

No you can just get a small incremental update to your scratchpad on each new block from the pool (that is actually what is done I think). The cost of doing that is so much lower than running a full node it does't provide a huge incentive, instead barely one at all. No you can just get a small incremental update to your scratchpad on each new block from the pool (that is actually what is done I think). The cost of doing that is so much lower than running a full node it does't provide a huge incentive, instead barely one at all.

Melbustus



Offline



Activity: 1694

Merit: 1003









LegendaryActivity: 1694Merit: 1003 Re: [XMR] Monero Speculation September 16, 2015, 08:24:38 PM #8772 Quote from: smooth on September 16, 2015, 07:33:48 PM Quote from: Melbustus on September 16, 2015, 07:10:58 PM Quote from: ArticMine on September 16, 2015, 06:08:37 PM ...

1) ... We must keep in mind that orphan block based arguments will also fail since these are based on the presence of a base emission.

...





As I noted a page or two ago, I see this result in Peter R's paper, but I don't intuitively understand it

As I noted a page or two ago, I see this result in Peter R's paper, but I don't intuitively understand it

It is easy to understand. The cost you incur for including another transaction and potentially having your block orphaned is losing the reward, measured against the benefit of another transaction fee. You can try to construct something based on the cost being losing the transaction fee but it becomes a snake eating its own tail.



It is easy to understand. The cost you incur for including another transaction and potentially having your block orphaned is losing the reward, measured against the benefit of another transaction fee. You can try to construct something based on the cost being losing the transaction fee but it becomes a snake eating its own tail.

Still not seeing how it breaks with no coinbase tx and only fees. The cost of each tx is the extra orphan risk caused by the extra X bytes needed to describe the tx, multiplied by the tx fee included in the tx. How is that not the case?



Now with current block reward, and for the foreseeable future, coinbase rewards will be much higher than avg fees, so the cost of orphaning a block is mostly going to be associated with that coinbase tx. But ultimately, why is the above invalid? There's *still* some cost to adding a tx to a block, so a rational miner will not do so unless the tx includes enough fee to cover that cost (again, the delta on orphan risk due to the additional bytes).



Sorry if I'm being thick on this, but I haven't yet seen a sufficient explanation.







Quote from: smooth on September 16, 2015, 07:33:48 PM

Also, consider the very first transaction you might add to a block. There is absolutely no downside to adding it (no reward or previous transaction fees). If a fee market works, it has to work for every single transaction in a block, including the first one.







Put yourself in the shoes of a bitcoin miner in the year 2141 (no block reward). There's demand for transaction confirmations, so you have a mempool with a bunch of transactions which include fees ranging from 0 to some positive number. It takes time for blocks to propagate, and orphan risk increases exponentially with the quantity of data you're transmitting. How do you select which transactions to include?



I'd chart orphan-risk per byte against the sets of transactions I can build and the resultant aggregate blocksizes and fees......Hmmm...that actually feels like it might an NP-complete problem (an instance of the

Still not seeing how it breaks with no coinbase tx and only fees. The cost of each tx is the extra orphan risk caused by the extra X bytes needed to describe the tx, multiplied by the tx fee included in the tx. How is that not the case?Now with current block reward, and for the foreseeable future, coinbase rewards will be much higher than avg fees, so the cost of orphaning a block is mostly going to be associated with that coinbase tx. But ultimately, why is the above invalid? There's *still* some cost to adding a tx to a block, so a rational miner will not do so unless the tx includes enough fee to cover that cost (again, the delta on orphan risk due to the additional bytes).Sorry if I'm being thick on this, but I haven't yet seen a sufficient explanation.Put yourself in the shoes of a bitcoin miner in the year 2141 (no block reward). There's demand for transaction confirmations, so you have a mempool with a bunch of transactions which include fees ranging from 0 to some positive number. It takes time for blocks to propagate, and orphan risk increases exponentially with the quantity of data you're transmitting. How do you select which transactions to include?I'd chart orphan-risk per byte against the sets of transactions I can build and the resultant aggregate blocksizes and fees......Hmmm...that actually feels like it might an NP-complete problem (an instance of the knapsack problem ?). Meh, will think about this later. Anyways, there are practical-enough solutions to those problems, even for largish N. Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.

smooth



Offline



Activity: 2534

Merit: 1167









LegendaryActivity: 2534Merit: 1167 Re: [XMR] Monero Speculation September 16, 2015, 08:56:49 PM #8773 Quote from: Melbustus on September 16, 2015, 08:24:38 PM Put yourself in the shoes of a bitcoin miner in the year 2141 (no block reward). There's demand for transaction confirmations, so you have a mempool with a bunch of transactions which include fees ranging from 0 to some positive number. It takes time for blocks to propagate, and orphan risk increases exponentially with the quantity of data you're transmitting. How do you select which transactions to include?



There is no equilibrium where people pay a significant fee. Given a choice between mining an empty block (zero reward) and mining anything else any rational miner will choose "anything else" even if that is a 100 terabyte transaction paying a fee of one satoshi.



You can likewise view a total of one terabytes worth of multiple transactions paying a total fee of 1 satoshi the same way. There is no pricing pressure that would cause people creating transactions to want to pay more.





There is no equilibrium where people pay a significant fee. Given a choice between mining an empty block (reward) and miningany rational miner will choose "anything else" even if that is a 100 terabyte transaction paying a fee of one satoshi.You can likewise view a total of one terabytes worth of multiple transactions paying a total fee of 1 satoshi the same way. There is no pricing pressure that would cause people creating transactions to want to pay more.

TrueCryptonaire



Offline



Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000









LegendaryActivity: 1092Merit: 1000 Re: [XMR] Monero Speculation September 16, 2015, 09:12:09 PM #8774 My fat fingers bought 648 XMR some time ago..... It was accident - I hoped just to nibble a bit and waite until there will be someone willing to sell me lower...

Melbustus



Offline



Activity: 1694

Merit: 1003









LegendaryActivity: 1694Merit: 1003 Re: [XMR] Monero Speculation September 16, 2015, 09:18:16 PM #8775 Quote from: smooth on September 16, 2015, 08:56:49 PM Quote from: Melbustus on September 16, 2015, 08:24:38 PM Put yourself in the shoes of a bitcoin miner in the year 2141 (no block reward). There's demand for transaction confirmations, so you have a mempool with a bunch of transactions which include fees ranging from 0 to some positive number. It takes time for blocks to propagate, and orphan risk increases exponentially with the quantity of data you're transmitting. How do you select which transactions to include?



There is no equilibrium where people pay a significant fee. Given a choice between mining an empty block (zero reward) and mining anything else any rational miner will choose "anything else" even if that is a 100 terabyte transaction paying a fee of one satoshi.



You can likewise view a total of one terabytes worth of multiple transactions paying a total fee of 1 satoshi the same way. There is no pricing pressure that would cause people creating transactions to want to pay more.



There is no equilibrium where people pay a significant fee. Given a choice between mining an empty block (reward) and miningany rational miner will choose "anything else" even if that is a 100 terabyte transaction paying a fee of one satoshi.You can likewise view a total of one terabytes worth of multiple transactions paying a total fee of 1 satoshi the same way. There is no pricing pressure that would cause people creating transactions to want to pay more.



Only in that single edge case. So, ok, if there's basically zero demand for transactions the orphan-risk analysis breaks down. But if the mempool contains more than one fee-containing tx, the orphan risk analysis seems to holds.



So again, put yourself in the shoes of that miner. How would you select transactions? Seems unlikely that you, being rational, would just shove all the transactions in a giant block without making sure that your giant block has a good-enough (relative to the fee-rev you're earning) chance of not being orphaned. Only in that single edge case. So, ok, if there's basically zero demand for transactions the orphan-risk analysis breaks down. But if the mempool contains more than one fee-containing tx, the orphan risk analysis seems to holds.So again, put yourself in the shoes of that miner. How would you select transactions? Seems unlikely that you, being rational, would just shove all the transactions in a giant block without making sure that your giant block has a good-enough (relative to the fee-rev you're earning) chance of not being orphaned. Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.

smooth



Offline



Activity: 2534

Merit: 1167









LegendaryActivity: 2534Merit: 1167 Re: [XMR] Monero Speculation September 16, 2015, 09:22:14 PM

Last edit: September 16, 2015, 11:12:51 PM by smooth #8776 Quote from: Melbustus on September 16, 2015, 09:18:16 PM Quote from: smooth on September 16, 2015, 08:56:49 PM Quote from: Melbustus on September 16, 2015, 08:24:38 PM Put yourself in the shoes of a bitcoin miner in the year 2141 (no block reward). There's demand for transaction confirmations, so you have a mempool with a bunch of transactions which include fees ranging from 0 to some positive number. It takes time for blocks to propagate, and orphan risk increases exponentially with the quantity of data you're transmitting. How do you select which transactions to include?



There is no equilibrium where people pay a significant fee. Given a choice between mining an empty block (zero reward) and mining anything else any rational miner will choose "anything else" even if that is a 100 terabyte transaction paying a fee of one satoshi.



You can likewise view a total of one terabytes worth of multiple transactions paying a total fee of 1 satoshi the same way. There is no pricing pressure that would cause people creating transactions to want to pay more.



There is no equilibrium where people pay a significant fee. Given a choice between mining an empty block (reward) and miningany rational miner will choose "anything else" even if that is a 100 terabyte transaction paying a fee of one satoshi.You can likewise view a total of one terabytes worth of multiple transactions paying a total fee of 1 satoshi the same way. There is no pricing pressure that would cause people creating transactions to want to pay more.



Only in that single edge case. So, ok, if there's basically zero demand for transactions the orphan-risk analysis breaks down. But if the mempool contains more than one fee-containing tx, the orphan risk analysis seems to holds. Only in that single edge case. So, ok, if there's basically zero demand for transactions the orphan-risk analysis breaks down. But if the mempool contains more than one fee-containing tx, the orphan risk analysis seems to holds.

No the mempool doesn't matter, because you still need an incentive for people to pay a non-negligible fee. Let's say the most profitable transaction in the entire pool pays some negligible fee so you include it (better than nothing right?). Then the next transition need only compensate you for the potential loss of your infinitesimal profit on the first transaction, which in turn is even more infinitesimal. Everyone transacting understands this so they understand that the fee needed to get into a block is virtually nothing. Because the fee necessary to get into the block at all is so small, even the highest fee transaction in the entire mempool won't pay a lot (unless someone fat fingers of course). So this all collapses. That's what the math is telling you.



Quote So again, put yourself in the shoes of that miner. How would you select transactions? Seems unlikely that you, being rational, would just shove all the transactions in a giant block without making sure that your giant block has a good-enough (relative to the fee-rev you're earning) chance of not being orphaned.



You're going to choose the combination that gives you the best outcome. People transacting know that and will only pay something extremely negligible, not something that allows you to make a profit and actually consume electricity hashing. No the mempool doesn't matter, because you still need an incentive for people to pay a non-negligible fee. Let's say the most profitable transaction in the entire pool pays some negligible fee so you include it (better than nothing right?). Then the next transition need only compensate you for the potential loss of your infinitesimal profit on the first transaction, which in turn is even more infinitesimal. Everyone transacting understands this so they understand that the fee needed to get into a block is virtually nothing. Because the fee necessary to get into the block at all is so small, even the highest fee transaction in the entire mempool won't pay a lot (unless someone fat fingers of course). So this all collapses. That's what the math is telling you.You're going to choose the combination that gives you the best outcome. People transacting know that and will only pay something extremely negligible, not something that allows you to make a profit and actually consume electricity hashing.