diff options
| author | oscar <petdog@gmail.com> | 2017-12-24 14:59:23 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2017-12-24 13:59:26 +0000 |
| commit | 59ea7c1e4d57337bc95dfb04b4ca77c74f83af82 (patch) | |
| tree | c77daffa16b2107bc3b38150e34014f1db65e094 | |
| parent | 696a8a055c03b748602c67184c38f7103adbd4e4 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-59ea7c1e4d57337bc95dfb04b4ca77c74f83af82.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-59ea7c1e4d57337bc95dfb04b4ca77c74f83af82.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] what do you think about having a maximum fee rate?
| -rw-r--r-- | b3/2d360b6b7f0f9835a8a8eb7ef7c05a9b4675da | 125 |
1 files changed, 125 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/b3/2d360b6b7f0f9835a8a8eb7ef7c05a9b4675da b/b3/2d360b6b7f0f9835a8a8eb7ef7c05a9b4675da new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a2bfc39fe --- /dev/null +++ b/b3/2d360b6b7f0f9835a8a8eb7ef7c05a9b4675da @@ -0,0 +1,125 @@ +Return-Path: <petdog@gmail.com> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3075D8D7 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sun, 24 Dec 2017 13:59:26 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-qt0-f182.google.com (mail-qt0-f182.google.com + [209.85.216.182]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83DA9403 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sun, 24 Dec 2017 13:59:25 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by mail-qt0-f182.google.com with SMTP id m59so41015247qte.11 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sun, 24 Dec 2017 05:59:25 -0800 (PST) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; + h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to + :cc; bh=YGxpG72mxiSWeC5NZ8JCz6aOFURZ+c9p37y6MvM+O88=; + b=Gerket2q0iXyTWLj6bFp1TClJCfgRQv51QDmXS1jwZtH9jBp8W47jIdQ4eFVi5vB+v + TRyg2slgi59pK+ruFcuVlyzz7CFffKDFDmFi4I+Nly6WUxsOzicJ1Ke1YcORI7uUi20E + A3L4YtRAXngNCBpBDC3JPSfdKXmzEuPvfirkbiPJ8vI1i9sM9OxhpShYUPuUYrtqYO// + g3MrqHaMsOIGPq4SznAPrRltj7+vCTwfyYhjE1/SI7Suwr/Smqr5vWYS7FOGBZ7PErlw + g9JztU8H13+5z9uUYTqZOT9nAxt7ZatQTOT7bKjhvDW3MU5d0dZPwAmbrVGLLkgllO3x + 6ZEA== +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=1e100.net; s=20161025; + h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date + :message-id:subject:to:cc; + bh=YGxpG72mxiSWeC5NZ8JCz6aOFURZ+c9p37y6MvM+O88=; + b=MeJtar+ywHs7Ey1q9MfmIm2aKOm+iIpZ6LXUknYbRWBqiB7RrJszlh3Ai13VnySHcN + jN6I3YhUv9X4SKOjPlvA6mvHoEsNAMw8mCUEut2tjkEsSLm6YNx/JrnMNYK4ixrNdQJa + 0YvXCgfp7ye6bw0bZ7xcWwPm1lUOe+OyGLtTLSipswfCMzNWWf5XMQBiXn6O1bygPBKK + EinEFfqFcX3u8WAJcXvJ2HNwCShPaTbKoNaZbMe8mOGilbuulvVWXgzKUpj8H3yqW6DG + wPYyxWzx2IDO4UDvRh+z70A6PNsCzFQNv0fnJt9Y3dUVnASGp0Lk6hJtb3FeEdhzFnax + pilw== +X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mKt/7myfWHWdq+EQf80A31L4fv+WNqcAFXO33IPmG5iCSqL9EA9 + XmxgrvWiayI8Ftodj4nE6iQ3XcaOPluDZTRBFuw= +X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBouBIi7qXfrUzzhvFSVuv6CN/TYuCBxkDKe6EdOLd3LoJTWg9txq7FVfSF4sKEpeuIPvZM0v08fU/iENIvB79gQ= +X-Received: by 10.200.51.143 with SMTP id c15mr27773801qtb.46.1514123964460; + Sun, 24 Dec 2017 05:59:24 -0800 (PST) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Received: by 10.12.157.9 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Dec 2017 05:59:23 -0800 (PST) +In-Reply-To: <PS2P216MB0179A68450E8AA5E4E77915B9D000@PS2P216MB0179.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> +References: <CAMjoVH+5W+1pO2bJSPNr20sGJDVvwrKS85KZZYsSdXjSL65jLA@mail.gmail.com> + <PS2P216MB0179A68450E8AA5E4E77915B9D000@PS2P216MB0179.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> +From: oscar <petdog@gmail.com> +Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 14:59:23 +0100 +Message-ID: <CAMjoVH+qEOgMSLmoJ+1qcbiKJ0L2pcr_48Sn5AOttXg+hReHxg@mail.gmail.com> +To: Damian Williamson <willtech@live.com.au> +Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, + DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, + RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.org +X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 22:40:25 +0000 +Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] what do you think about having a maximum fee rate? +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 13:59:26 -0000 + +On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 2:13 AM, Damian Williamson <willtech@live.com.au> wrote: +> If all transactions pay the proposed max then fee there are still going to +> be an awful lot of never confirming transactions once the transaction +> bandwidth limit is surpassed + +Yes obviously. That would be the unequivocal sign that it's time to +bump the block size. + +Why not just bump now then? My main worry is that wasting space should +not be profitable for anybody. If it is, it's an encouragement to +waste space, and imho we have such an encouragement in place. + +Fees should be allowed to get high enough as to discourage wasteful +usage of blockchain space, but not high enough as to make it +*profitable* to waste space, if you are a sufficiently big miner. The +fact that it is now profitable, and that such big miners exist, makes +me believe that a lot of blockchain space is wasted on purpose. + +> This is what I have been working on as an alternative: +> +> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-December/015371.html + +I read your proposal, but the value that I see in mine is that it is +extremely simple. It would be trivial to have nodes stop propagating +transactions with fees over the max, and miners can trivially reject +blocks where coinbase > block reward + max fee rate * block size, if +they are on board. + +It would also be quite simple to adapt wallets, given that the fee +range is fixed. If nodes had an rpc method giving you some mempool +statistics, it would also be simple to correctly recommend fees +according to the time expected to first confirmation. + +Sure, at some point, if there is real congestion, it would just start +always recommending the max fee. Again, this means that it's time to +bump the block size. I think this is ultimately unavoidable, but I +understand the reservations, and I agree that increasing the block +size without incentivizing efficient usage would be counterproductive. +I think the current fees are certainly incentivizing efficient usage +to users, but not to miners. My (maybe naive) idea is that it would be +possible to find an appropriate maximum fee value that would move +things towards efficient usage by both users and big miners. + +This would work very well if coupled with some proposals I've read to +slowly increase the block size with a process similar to difficulty +adjustment, like adding 100kb if 95% of the last 2016 blocks were +full. Without max fees, a big miner could easily destroy this strategy +by always applying just enough pressure as to always skyrocket fees +and profit, while the blocksize slowly increases. + +The way I see it, unbounded fees together with small blocks and big +miners introduce a terrible flaw in the incentives equilibrium. +I would really like an open discussion on this topic. + |