An Onchain Implementation Of Mining Feerate Futures

Subject: An Onchain Implementation Of Mining Feerate Futures


Future onchain fees to be paid to miners cannot, in general, be predicted, as unpredictable novel uses of the blockchain may increase use of block space, and unpredictable novel innovations on block space use reduction may decrease use of block space. This uncertainty makes onchain use unpalatable, and even non-custodial offchain uses like the Lightning Network incur risk of onchain enforcement, and the uncertain onchain fees could still affect offchain behaviors.

On the other hand, as more halvenings occur, the proportion of miner earnings that come from onchain fees increases, such that low onchain fees may reduce miner earnings, which discourages miners from mining and thereby reduce the security of the blockchain layer.

As such, mining fee futures are incentivized on both sides:

  • Blockchain users want to bet that future mining fees will be high, so that if mining fees become high the users will be compensated, offsetting their losses due to high onchain fees.
  • Miners want to bet that future mining fees will be low, so that if mining fees become low the miners will be compensated, offsetting their reduced income due to low onchain fees.

In effect, a mining feerate futures scheme has blockchain users pay miners a flat rate above the median low-fee rate, with miners giving assured confirmations if a high-fee spike occurs. Miners get assured income, blockchain users get assured confirmation even in a high-fee spike.

In this writeup I describe a method by which a miner and a blockchain user may create a simple futures contract in a trustless manner.

A Binary Mining Fee Futures Contract

First, the parameters:

  • An amount A[Alice] from the blockchain user Alice, which will be given to the miner in case of low onchain fees.
  • An amount A[Bob] from the miner Bob, which will be given to the blockchain user in case of high onchain fees.
  • A feerate boundary F: “low onchain fees” means below this feerate, “high onchain fees” means above this feerate.
  • A future blockheight T, and a miner execution time in blocks N after this blockheight (T + N).

Onchain, the SCRIPT involves the three branches below:

  • MuSig(Alice, Bob) - Taproot keyspend branch
    • Cooperative resolution branch
    • Miner unilateral execution branch
    • User unilateral execution branch

The user and the miner both cooperatively make a transaction spending from SegWit funds (A[Alice] from the user, A[Bob] from the miner) to a Taproot address with the above. But before they sign, broadcast, and confirm the funding transaction, the user first needs to provide signatures to spend from the miner unilateral branch.

Miner Unilateral (Low Fees) Branch

This branch is implemented using a blockspace-wasteful Taproot transaction, like all proper modern constructions, such as ordinals. (This is a joke. The cooperative branch can be used by the miner so it can get its funds immediately and with little block space wasted, if the user agrees that fees are low. Block space is only vicariously consumed if the user does not agree fees are low, or is not responding when the miner requests for execution of the low-fee case.)

(Being space-wasteful is also the reason why the miner unilateral execution branch uses separate <Alice> OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY and <Bob> OP_CHECKSIG, instead of just <1> OP_CHECKSIG.)

Wasting block space in this branch is not a problem as this branch only triggers when mining fees are low (i.e. block space is cheap).

The transaction that spends from this branch is the miner unilateral transaction, which has only an OP_RETURN output. It thus has one input with the wasteful witness spending from the address defined above, and one OP_RETURN output with some large data of 80 bytes or 320 weight units (or whatever datacarriersize setting is typically available on miners).

The total A[Alice] + A[Bob] should be divided by the boundary feerate F to get a number of weight units to target. This means that the OP_SIZE <520> OP_EQUALVERIFY part may vary the <520> so that the targeted weight units is achieved. The OP_RETURN output size can also be varied to get the targeted weight units.

An alternative to OP_SIZE <targetsize> OP_EQUALVERIFY would be to use OP_SHA256 <hash> OP_EQUALVERIFY with the preimage of <targetsize> bytes generated cooperatively (say by seeding a crypto PRNG from the ECDH of the miner and user). This would prevent witness malleation, and is in fact what is recommended; we simply show the OP_SIZE version to better explain how we create the contract, but an OP_SHA256 of a pre-arranged large data is strictly better.

If the total amount A[Alice] + A[Bob] is large, or the boundary feerate F is low, then the number of weight units to target might be too large for a single transaction, even with a large witness item and a large OP_RETURN output. In that case, it should have another output with the SCRIPT branches below (internal pubkey can be some standardized NUMS point, or just the MuSig(Alice[eph], Bob[eph]) with neither side ever signing this particular aggregated keypair — these can be ephemeral pubkeys generated by user and miner instead of their normal pubkeys, with the private key forgetten immediately).

    • Continuation branch
    • Single-block assurance branch

The continuation branch should then be spent in another transaction with expensive witness and OP_RETURN outputs, and again optionally with another output for continuation. The size being compared to can be varied if the particular continuation is the last one.

The second branch exists to force the miner to put the entire sequence of transactions in a single block. If the miner puts only the first transaction in the sequence in a block, then the user can steal the remaining fund unilaterally on the next block (in particular, since a rational miner wold only use this in a low-fee condition, the user can easily pay a different miner to confirm that punishment transaction). A rational non-majority miner would thus prefer to just put all the miner-unilateral transactions into a single block.

Using The Miner Unilateral Branch

Prior to signing and broadcasting the funding transaction, the miner unilateral transaction (or transactions if the targeted weight is particularly high) is signed by the user using the miner unilateral execution branch (and for continuation transactions, the continuation branch). The user sends those signatures to the miner, but the miner does NOT send back signatures to the user, as the transactions are intended to be a miner-unilateral control.

If the mempool has only transactions with fees below the boundary, then the miner would earn more by actually taking the miner unilateral transactions and mining them. The N miner execution time is the grace period to allow the miner to get some block into the blockchain with the miner-unilateral transactions.

The miner effectively gets the A[Alice] amount, and gets back its A[Bob] wager, via mining fees.

There is a risk of chain reorgs, with the miner-unilateral transaction already seen by other miners, who can then take the same transction and acquire its mining fees. On the other hand, chain reorgs are unlikely, and deliberate chain forking in order to acquire the miner-unilateral transaction of another miner is expensive. This risk can be considered by the miner when proposing its A[Bob] wager.

If the mempool is dominated by transactions with fees above the boundary, and this condition persists up to blockheight T + N, then the miner can earn more by putting the higher-fee transactions into its blocks rather than this unilateral transaction. While it would “lose” its A[Bob] wager, it would end up earning more than the combined A[Alice] + A[Bob] amount anyway if there are enough transactions with feerate higher than F to fill a block (i.e. A[Bob] is a sunk cost for the miner).

Cooperative Low Fees Case

When fees are low, there is a mild incentive for blockchain users to cooperate by instead signing a transaction that simply transfers the funds to the miner.

As the unilateral miner transaction is wasteful of block space, if the miner is forced to use it, this puts a mild pressure on mempool space usage, which mildly increases onchain fees.

The expectation is that the blockchain user is engaging in this contract in order to mitigate the effect of high fees. By cooperating, the blockchain user is able to provide a small help in keeping fees low.

Although the blockchain user would lose its A[Alice] wager, it would lose it anyway if it did not cooperate (i.e. sunk cost), as the miner can always exercise its unilateral transaction. The blockchain user would still prefer to keep onchain fees low by cooperating.

The miner also has a mild incentive to cooperate in this branch: the resulting transaction is smaller, it ends up paying to the miner directly instead of via fees (thus making it safe to broadcast to competitor miners and increase the chance that it can be enforced before T + N, and also letting the miner access the funds immediately instead of 100 blocks after it wins a block).

Unilateral User (High Fees) Branch

The miner wants the low fees branch to trigger, as it gets A[Alice] + A[Bob] in that branch. It gets first dibs by being given an earlier timelock (T) compared to the timelock the user has (T + N).

However, as noted in previous sections, this branch has economic incentives to not be taken in a high-onchain-fee environment.

Thus, we expect that if the high-fee condition persists until T + N, the miner will not have claimed the fund shared with the user. At that point, the user will be able to claim those funds via its unilateral branch.

The user unilateral branch can be used with any transaction. For example, if the user needs to add fees to some high-priority transaction that needs to confirm right now, the user can just use this fund to pay for the fees by adding just one more input (albeit with a witness that includes a Tapscript revelation with its 33-byte pubkey, at least one 32-byte Merkle Tree branch, a 32-byte internal pubkey, and a 64-byte signature).

The miner can offer to also cooperatively sign a transaction that spends the fund in a transaction specified by the user. This allows the user to reduce the witness to just a 64-byte signature.

In order to pay fees effectively even at ridiculously high feerates, it is likely that the miner would have to offer an A[Bob] wager that is at least one order of magnitude larger than A[Alice]. Nevertheless, if the probability of high fees is low enough, the miner would be willing to take on that risk in order to get some assured income during low fee periods.


Most onchain contracts are motivated by eliminating the counterparty risk that comes from relying on a trusted third party. In this case, we get that benefit like usual, but I find it notable that we also (theoretically) get the benefit of not having to worry about principle actor corruption. It’s like being able to bet for your favorite sports team without creating a temptation for the athletes on that team to bet against themselves.

For example, a trusted third party arbitrating futures contracts for a centralized exchange or an oracle providing data for DLC users can only fully reproducibly use fee data from confirmed transactions—but miners can manipulate the fees in their blocks to a certain degree. The trusted third party could use transactions from their local mempool to derive an estimated feerate range for a particular block, but miners could make that third party look unreliable by including a different set of transactions in their blocks (and this could happen accidentally if the miner received significant fees out-of-band). With this onchain contract, miners are (in theory) incentivized to make decisions based on the candidate blocks they’re actually producing, aligning their incentive to maximize fee revenue with their incentive to maximize future contracts revenue.

That said, I think a contemporary post on this forum points to a weakness in this theoretical model: a miner with a large percentage of total network hashrate can forgo mining a transaction in a particular block and still have a realistic chance of being able to mine that transaction in one of their later blocks. In the case of this contract, the large miner may be willing to settle this contract in their favor even if it means being unable to mine some higher feerate transactions in the current block because the large miner knows that they’ll have a chance of mining some of the excluded transactions in the next block. A miner with a small percentage of total network hashrate doesn’t have that option: they’ll have to let the contract settle against them because their probability of getting a second chance at mining any transactions is tiny.

Given the above, I suspect that widespread use of this contract might make large miners even more profitable than smaller miners, increasing centralization of mining. I haven’t analyzed how significant of an effect that would be and I don’t have a good enough intuition to hazard a guess.

1 Like

Interesting approach which could solve lot of problems.

This can be avoided by using average fee rates over N blocks and settle discreet log contracts using multi oracles.

My intuition here is that if the congestion is large enough, then even a large miner is forced to leave off its execution branch of this contract.

Consider the case where each block can contain only one transaction each. Suppose there are two other transactions (let us assume it is an ordinal transaction so they are as large as the miner-unilteral tx branch here) whose feerates are strictly higher than the feerate of the fixed miner-unilateral tx branch. Now further suppose the miner is in possession of a perfect oracle that tells it that it WILL mine the next 2 blocks (i.e. it is so large it has 100% of the hashrate).

Since there is congestion (i.e. there are more high-fee-paying transactions than a single block can fit), the miner, of whatever size, is better off putting the two other transactions in both of the blocks it will get, than the miner-unilateral branch of this contract.

Thus, in terms of the N in this contract, if at time T the high-fee-paying transactions are many enough that they would fill more than N blocks, the miner is still incentivized to pack those transactions into its blocks. This is because it has to decide between high-paying transaction for N blocks now, or a low-paying one now and high-paying transactions for N-(1transaction) blocks. Note in particular that the post you linked has the miner deciding between a low-paying tx now or a high-paying tx replacement later.

This should be useful in the case where it is obvious that there is a situation where the blockchain is congested for N blocks at time T. In boundary cases where the blockchain is congested for less than N blocks I think the user would be fine with the miner exercising its branch, as N is pre-agreed-to anyway.

I don’t think that’s true? If a miner mines the low feerate “miner tx” before it expires, leaving some random higher feerate txs in the mempool, that raises the fees available in the next block for everyone including low hashrate miners. So I think that actually gives an advantage to low-hashrate miners: they get the benefit of an occassional bonus high feerate tx, without having to pay the cost of having mined a low feerate tx first.

That is: yes, there is an incentive for large miners to behave differently to small miners, but that difference benefits whoever finds future blocks equally, whether they participated in the strategy or not, whether they’rea small miner or a large one.

In particular, suppose if you mined normally, you’d extract fees a, b from the blocks, but if you add the tx, you instead extract fees a_1, b_1 where a_1 < a and a_1 + b_1 > a+b. In that case, call hashrate mining a_1 “strategic” and say their hashrate is is 0 < h < 1, then the payoff matrix is:

probability who mines block a, b block a value block b value payoff (strategic, normal)
h^2 strategic, strategic a_1 b_1 (a_1+b_1, 0)
(1-h)h normal, strategic a b (b, a)
h(1-h) strategic, normal a_1 b_1 (a_1, b_1)
(1-h)^2 normal, normal a b (0, a+b)

Expected payoff for strategic miners is h ( a_1 + h\cdot b_1 + (1-h)b )

Expected payoff for normal miners is (1-h) ( a + h\cdot b_1 + (1-h) b )

But once you divide that by their respective hashpower, the proportional payoff for normal miners is higher, as a > a_1.

Very clever implementation - seems to strike a balance between the ethos of Bitcoin (incentivized yet voluntary participation, limited middle-persons, onchain) and the need for Bitcoin-native projects to have known costs and miner’s to hedge against low feerate periods.

You may have seen the deal done by Block Green to seed a miner with capital in exchange for the total revenue of their next 50 blocks. This seems to suggest that some miners would also like upfront disposable capital. I wonder how this implementation might allow for something similar - perhaps some adjunct service that offers up the collateral for miners with some accompanying stipulations for handling defaults?

Ultimately you can boil down the innovation in this post to the single idea: it is possible to create a proof-of-low-fees by forcing a miner to include an artificially-enlarged transaction in its block in order to recover its bonded funds.

Your target as stated seems to not fit the above — what you seem to want is someone is able to loan out to funds to some business, which then promises to pay back from its earnings. This probably requires real-world force and some kind of legal system.

Less generally, once a miner has established itself, it can smoothen out its incoming cashflow using this mechanism to offer high-fee insurance to users. In case of low fees, it earns more, and in case of high fees, it earns less. If there is enough competition and the miner is able to track well with its competitors, I expect that MC=MR is reached and none of the miners will actually earn more total from this mechanism, but will get smoothened continuous cashflow, which helps reduce its uncertainties (e.g. grid balancing) which would still be beneficial to actual miner implementations.

1 Like

Quick note for the record that I checked this math and it seemed correct to me.

Sorry for adding confusion; thanks for the corrections!

No worries; in between those posts I had a couple of goes at simulating it in python trying to come up with something less handwavy, so I don’t think it was obvious, and in any event “large miners can increase their own profits by delaying transactions in ways that would not be rational for small miners” sounds pretty bad and adding on “but if they do, this will increase profits for those small miners by an equal or larger amount” sounds more like wishful thinking than reality.