Some miners at OCEAN have started making use of the Coin Age Priority algorithm during block template construction using DATUM. Originally, Bitcoin Core originally selected transactions to include in blocks based on what they had seen first in their mempool. This logic was eventually replaced by prioritizing older coins, i.e. that had been sitting around unspent longer, over other coins. This was eventually only applied to a small portion of the blockspace, and then eventually done away with entirely around the time of Segwit. It’s still maintained in Bitcoin Knots.
I can only speculate as to the motives of the miners doing this, but given OCEAN’s rhetoric I can guess that it has something to do with prioritizing “financial” transactions over others. Even if not, even if it is purely to help small value UTXO owners, it is still every bit as irrational.
You can partition blockspace as a miner however you want, and prioritize ordering of transactions however you wish within those partitions, but it does not change the fact that blockspace is a fungible good being valued on an open market. If criteria other than the feerate are used to decide which transactions to include, you will leave money on the table. The only situation where that would not be true is one where those criteria were 1:1 identical to deciding based on feerate, which would be a meaningless criteria.
Creating a subsection of blockspace selected for by other criteria ultimately accomplishes two things: 1) leaving money on the table as a miner, as definitionally any meaningful non-feerate criteria results in collecting less fees, and 2) create a bucket of blockspace submitted to competitive “fee” pressures according to whatever different criteria is used, without any of that pressure creating direct revenue increases for miners using this new criteria.
The new subsection of blockspace doesn’t ultimately reduce fee pressure, it simply leaves them making less money and users taking advantage of this new transaction selection criteria subjected to different competitive pressures miners do not directly benefit from.
You can’t hide from the reality that blockspace is a fungible good priced on the open market. You can accept that, or you can lose money. The only alternative is to futilely try to censor classes of transactions you don’t like, and if you happen to succeed, you destroy a core property of Bitcoin in the process.
Mining staying decentralized, widely distributed with many small operators, is critical for Bitcoin’s censorship resistance. It’s a shame to see signs like this of such smaller miners being economically irrational, given that it has huge implications for their success long term.
This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
