Bitcoin Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for Bitcoin crypto-currency enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Edit: This is a dumb question. I was new to Bitcoin when I asked it. Feel free to ignore or delete this Q:

Is it possible for a miner or mining pool to receive and not retransmit to peers information about a pending transaction?

Here is the scenario:

Several "normal" transactions are transmitted P2P with a transaction fee ranging from zero to 0.20 BTC. One client wants to have priority processing with a miner either because they have a special business agreement, are a frequent user, or pays a fee.

Likewise the miner wants to have "first dibs" on high value transactions + fees, sometimes at the exclusion of other miners who aren't part of that "fee collective".


Is it possible for a miner to get "first dibs" access to a transaction, before the rest of the network sees the pending transaction? How would this work, and can the current codebase support this?

share|improve this question
You're paying extra for a transaction and in exchange you're getting a delay in having it processed? I can't see anyone opting for such an arrangement. If any other miner or pool mines the next block, you just paid for a delay of roughly 10 minutes. – David Schwartz Nov 14 '12 at 11:30
I agree with @DavidSchwartz: this doesn't make any sense. – o0'. Mar 20 '13 at 9:57
@Lohoris - I asked this question in November '12 ... when I just learned about Bitcoin about one month earlier. Yep it's a dumb question. – LamonteCristo Mar 20 '13 at 12:08
up vote 2 down vote accepted

A non-standard client could choose to send his transactions only to a specific miner. One example might be for a client to negotiate a "monthly package" (off the blockchain), and then send all his tx directly to the pool, without any specific tx fees.

There is nothing in the protocol that prohibits or enables it - it is a possible extension that is outside of the protocol. To my knowledge, no such schemes have been reported in the real world.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.