<p>Assuming that you are referring to the <a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2634505.0" rel="nofollow noreferrer">linked thread by philipma1957</a>, the claim is weak in at least two points: it requires mining pools to not share the revenue from transaction fees with their participants, and it requires other Bitcoin users to outbid the mining pools that stuff the mempool a consistent amount of the time.
I’d like to note that I find the argument generally hard to follow due to the low-quality write-up, so I’m not sure if I correctly parsed what they mean. (If you have a better summary of what claim we’re discussing, you could perhaps include it in your question post.)</p>
<p>Since mining pools appear to have moved to also paying out the revenue from transaction fees, the first seems like an outdated assumption. The second is broken whenever a lull in blockspace demand occurs. Since the stuffers’ transactions remain valid, at that point the stuffers’ transaction fees are redistributed among the entire network’s hashrate.</p>
<p>As I understand it, I don’t find this claim convincing. Perhaps I could be convinced otherwise if it were more comprehensively explained and substantiated with a more complex model than “they make back exactly [their hashrate percentage] fees of the transaction fees they invested”.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-06T13:24:17.760Z
2023-05-08T17:24:02.467Z
2023-05-08T17:24:02.467Z
Murch
<p>phillipma1957 claims:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Bottom line is the fee setup is subject to attack at little or no cost if any major pool gets involved in the attack.
I am a small commercial miner maybe 160kwatts  of gear which is a drop in the bucket.
But if you have 100 megawatts and work with a large pool  with a few other big mines you can really do a whole lot to move fees from 0.15 btc a block last year to 1.50 btc a block now. I do think this is happening now.
But I also think it means we are about to see a large btc price increase. As this super sized blocks seem to happen in the beginning of bull runs.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5450797.20" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5450797.20</a></p>
<p>Is this claim substantial? Is this somewhat of a known issue? If so what kinds of procedures (if any) have been proposed to attempt to resolve it?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-06T17:14:40.163Z
I guess you'd have to ask them? They make a big claim without backing it whatsoever.
Antoine Poinsot
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-06T20:16:59.820Z
@AntoinePoinsot they added some details I wouldn't say its evidence but they at-least layed out the context in which it could occur. Limiting discussion between me and the person who already asserts that it is possible would only lead me to a circular argument. I am looking for anything that could futher substantiate the claim, if there is nothing then thats ok too.
Poseidon
<transaction-fees><attack>
Can the claim that "Bitcoin has a fee model that can be easily manipulated" be proven? If so are there any proposed solutions?
Poseidon
# Can the claim that "Bitcoin has a fee model that can be easily manipulated" be proven? If so are there any proposed solutions?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-05-06)

phillipma1957 claims:

> Bottom line is the fee setup is subject to attack at little or no cost if any major pool gets involved in the attack.
> I am a small commercial miner maybe 160kwatts of gear which is a drop in the bucket.
> But if you have 100 megawatts and work with a large pool with a few other big mines you can really do a whole lot to move fees from 0.15 btc a block last year to 1.50 btc a block now. I do think this is happening now.
> But I also think it means we are about to see a large btc price increase. As this super sized blocks seem to happen in the beginning of bull runs.

<https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5450797.20>

Is this claim substantial? Is this somewhat of a known issue? If so what kinds of procedures (if any) have been proposed to attempt to resolve it?

**Tags:** transaction-fees, attack

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I guess you'd have to ask them? They make a big claim without backing it whatsoever.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 they added some details I wouldn't say its evidence but they at-least layed out the context in which it could occur. Limiting discussion between me and the person who already asserts that it is possible would only lead me to a circular argument. I am looking for anything that could futher substantiate the claim, if there is nothing then thats ok too.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2023-05-06. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

Assuming that you are referring to the [linked thread by philipma1957](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2634505.0), the claim is weak in at least two points: it requires mining pools to not share the revenue from transaction fees with their participants, and it requires other Bitcoin users to outbid the mining pools that stuff the mempool a consistent amount of the time.
I’d like to note that I find the argument generally hard to follow due to the low-quality write-up, so I’m not sure if I correctly parsed what they mean. (If you have a better summary of what claim we’re discussing, you could perhaps include it in your question post.)

Since mining pools appear to have moved to also paying out the revenue from transaction fees, the first seems like an outdated assumption. The second is broken whenever a lull in blockspace demand occurs. Since the stuffers’ transactions remain valid, at that point the stuffers’ transaction fees are redistributed among the entire network’s hashrate.

As I understand it, I don’t find this claim convincing. Perhaps I could be convinced otherwise if it were more comprehensively explained and substantiated with a more complex model than “they make back exactly [their hashrate percentage] fees of the transaction fees they invested”.


---

