This query was impressed by this latest mempool phenomenon: some transactions have been ignored from blocks even once they had a aggressive fee-rate just because that they had a constructive sigop rely and the max sigop rely was reached earlier than the block template was completely stuffed. No matter empty house remained was stuffed utilizing zero sigop txs.

It appears that evidently miners have to resolve a knapsack-like downside the place they’re constrained by two exhausting limits: one is the scale of the block and the opposite is the utmost quantity of sigops. The previous is the one really optimized for in the usual mining algorithm, and the latter is more-or-less thought of because of the content material of this PR, which penalizes the scale of a transaction if it has a excessive sigop rely.

Q1: Suppose the mempool contained no zero sigop transactions and that
the choice algorithm constructed a block template consisting of
excessive sigop rely transactions solely however plenty of out there house. Is it
assured by the selection of nBytesPerSigOp that this block template
is extra handy for miners that one the place the block is full and
excessive sigop transactions are averted?

Judging by this reply it’d appear as if certainly the miner might earn barely extra in the event that they did some intelligent work, however that it would be exhausting for it to truly occur in observe.

Q2: Why is not the usual mempool-based charge estimation algorithm
sigop-aware? In a context during which there are many excessive sigop
transactions with aggressive fee-rates, there are two totally different subsequent
block charges relying on whether or not the transaction one is about to craft
has a constructive sigop rely or not.