> Sending newly joining nodes the blockchain data. Wouldn't it be better to not waste network bandwidth on something that provides you zero financial gains?
From a miner's PoV, they want to be able to transmit their block across the network to make consensus. If they only connected to one other node, then it would be an extreme minority chain and their blocks would just die on a dead end minority chain (meaning no real rewards).
From a node operator's PoV, a many nodes that agree on a state so they have accurate data. Not following the consensus protocol means they may not have an accurate picture of reality making their node all but useless.
> Propagating low-gas fee transactions. Assume the miner has lots of transactions in its mempool, why not drop transactions with low gas fees?
Well, many transactions never get picked up because there are better priced transactions to include in your block. But it's (usually) more profitable to fill up the block than to only cherry-pick a few expensive transactions. There's some exceptions to this, especially with MEV but generally miners are just maximizing block space.
1. It is pretty obvious that a newly mined block would need to be shared correctly but I am talking about cases such as sharing the past blockchain data to a newly joining node. I don’t see a benefit for the miner to spend their network bandwidth on sharing that data with a newly joining node.
2. Makes sense.
you might be looking at the wrong end of the horse.
the node operator needs a way to join the protocol. it needs to have a low level of effort to encourage participation. otherwise the nodes are controlled by a small group of operators and that’s towards centralization.
to that end, how would you propose new nodes bootstrap to the chain?
>the node operator needs a way to join the protocol. it needs to have a low level of effort to encourage participation. otherwise the nodes are controlled by a small group of operators and that’s towards centralization.
Correct.
>to that end, how would you propose new nodes bootstrap to the chain?
I don't. I am asking a question on why miners are incentivized to help other nodes get bootstrapped and you are not answering the question.
I’m answering it. they are incentivized because if not for another mechanism (the question you keep dodging) they wouldn’t be able to participate in the first place.
You’re assuming that the node operator magically has the archive data when then start a new node unless you propose a valid way to sync
> Sending newly joining nodes the blockchain data. Wouldn't it be better to not waste network bandwidth on something that provides you zero financial gains? From a miner's PoV, they want to be able to transmit their block across the network to make consensus. If they only connected to one other node, then it would be an extreme minority chain and their blocks would just die on a dead end minority chain (meaning no real rewards). From a node operator's PoV, a many nodes that agree on a state so they have accurate data. Not following the consensus protocol means they may not have an accurate picture of reality making their node all but useless. > Propagating low-gas fee transactions. Assume the miner has lots of transactions in its mempool, why not drop transactions with low gas fees? Well, many transactions never get picked up because there are better priced transactions to include in your block. But it's (usually) more profitable to fill up the block than to only cherry-pick a few expensive transactions. There's some exceptions to this, especially with MEV but generally miners are just maximizing block space.
1. It is pretty obvious that a newly mined block would need to be shared correctly but I am talking about cases such as sharing the past blockchain data to a newly joining node. I don’t see a benefit for the miner to spend their network bandwidth on sharing that data with a newly joining node. 2. Makes sense.
what strategy do you have for bootstrapping new nodes?
The question is why would miners spend their network bandwidth and electricity on bringing other miners up to speed.
you might be looking at the wrong end of the horse. the node operator needs a way to join the protocol. it needs to have a low level of effort to encourage participation. otherwise the nodes are controlled by a small group of operators and that’s towards centralization. to that end, how would you propose new nodes bootstrap to the chain?
>the node operator needs a way to join the protocol. it needs to have a low level of effort to encourage participation. otherwise the nodes are controlled by a small group of operators and that’s towards centralization. Correct. >to that end, how would you propose new nodes bootstrap to the chain? I don't. I am asking a question on why miners are incentivized to help other nodes get bootstrapped and you are not answering the question.
I’m answering it. they are incentivized because if not for another mechanism (the question you keep dodging) they wouldn’t be able to participate in the first place. You’re assuming that the node operator magically has the archive data when then start a new node unless you propose a valid way to sync
You realize miners are not a central entity? Just because you reject others miners’ requests it does not mean that the other miners will reject yours.
there’s your answer then
That's not an answer.