Changing the minimum relay feerate

In the discourse on blockchain transactions, particularly within the Bitcoin network, the conversation pivots around the concept of standardness and its implications for transaction confirmation, data storage, and network scaling. The notion that miners might begin to confirm transactions devoid of fees and exploit future Segwit versions for embedding random data up to 4 MB per transaction raises fundamental questions about the flexibility and limitations of the network's protocol. Such practices could potentially bypass existing constraints designed to maintain the network's integrity and efficiency.

The possibility of incorporating Proof of Work (PoW) within transactions represents a nuanced approach to enhancing transaction legitimacy and scalability. By embedding PoW, specifically through the examination of DER signatures' sizes within the Script, transactions could support batching. This technique allows for aggregating multiple low-fee transactions, thereby facilitating their propagation across the peer-to-peer network. These transactions, capable of containing sighashes, offer the flexibility for subsequent modifications, ultimately enabling nodes to batch and re-batch transactions. This process continues until the transactions qualify for inclusion in a block at the minimal fee rate of 1 satoshi per byte (sat/vB).

This approach also touches upon broader themes of blockchain scalability and economic models of transaction fees. By maintaining consistently low on-chain transaction fees, the necessity for second-layer solutions like the Lightning Network or sidechains is called into question. If the blockchain can accommodate all transactions directly on-chain at minimal costs, the utility of these supplementary layers becomes less apparent. Furthermore, this strategy suggests that even with stringent limits such as the default 300 MB mempool size or the 4 MB maximum block size, the network can still function efficiently without compromising security or operability.

However, this leads to a speculative scenario where if miners were to unilaterally lift these limits, it could precipitate a cycle of re-evaluations and adjustments to what constitutes default settings for the network. Such dynamics underscore a continuous dialogue within the blockchain community regarding the balance between innovation, network stability, and the decentralized ethos underpinning cryptocurrency technologies.