diff options
| author | Nadav Ivgi <nadav@shesek.info> | 2023-03-02 02:39:13 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2023-03-02 00:39:29 +0000 |
| commit | 735be4944cd5151f2afbd3de65d5d849fd86bad3 (patch) | |
| tree | 43ff76b73b1c139f0e00d725b8bb6afcd3c8dd3f | |
| parent | 7e217aad44cb89b6f4a8f27996afad10addd5209 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-735be4944cd5151f2afbd3de65d5d849fd86bad3.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-735be4944cd5151f2afbd3de65d5d849fd86bad3.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Minimum fees
| -rw-r--r-- | 7a/636a94174556c67032c9093a78ca36b0683c8f | 213 |
1 files changed, 213 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/7a/636a94174556c67032c9093a78ca36b0683c8f b/7a/636a94174556c67032c9093a78ca36b0683c8f new file mode 100644 index 000000000..95889e4e2 --- /dev/null +++ b/7a/636a94174556c67032c9093a78ca36b0683c8f @@ -0,0 +1,213 @@ +Return-Path: <nadav@shesek.info> +Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136]) + by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22B21C0032 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Thu, 2 Mar 2023 00:39:29 +0000 (UTC) +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D410661117 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Thu, 2 Mar 2023 00:39:28 +0000 (UTC) +DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org D410661117 +X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -1.697 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, + HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, + SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no +Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id b_UTbSJENneW + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Thu, 2 Mar 2023 00:39:27 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 +DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 67016610EE +Received: from mail-ed1-x533.google.com (mail-ed1-x533.google.com + [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::533]) + by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67016610EE + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Thu, 2 Mar 2023 00:39:27 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by mail-ed1-x533.google.com with SMTP id eg37so61057193edb.12 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 01 Mar 2023 16:39:27 -0800 (PST) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=shesek.info; s=shesek; t=1677717565; + h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version + :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; + bh=OWUhsLuE1qy4sVuPt+SxdtpuLpUe0BymqF8nuE5KPzw=; + b=sUIAK3gv4j4ilACZCQ7szoKmWOKIAN5XT/eag5I7yiC4IOY9WvqDR+IaPD9dSwAAPW + AO+YgYPBJrlWNbNYC6M9ziULd7CIV+IHWvICw4jY0ji525SmQHS1mxsE+mU5qkrJe/Bi + wqeEPdgvJWwdC7SOQvWD3Nh2kJlU92nZW77Ao= +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1677717565; + h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version + :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; + bh=OWUhsLuE1qy4sVuPt+SxdtpuLpUe0BymqF8nuE5KPzw=; + b=TeXUxkNmKEjJ/lNT5Gf4mBLnYU+9yzuqoz125AxsiFG+Mzj3UNyQUDCg470vDXABUr + y0QG5x1q8/rkv2H9/5G8+0YrGYUnFY8xDM7tkOJsVsEO6riufkqy1hWWOlhS0kSdBB8d + KPTT6iAOVqydQV+NecH8C59FttHzP9m6WY8Yau41l69Ols3ycZZAgBF/icoc3WDCc1Zc + FHE0iH0L+FZHBCWvj6IKNBUB4usLb+0aLDuRZI9tfUqAMOXr9BW6CPz32k/bRKsT78PP + JYigBrURFpvlp1k06z9utvHmw8Ad2RM2HWroDhPiR+W1j8AaT8WgDpYoTH0h/w9GRUed + phJw== +X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKVARK93j5m5Rj01Wyd7yY0FXunmsxKnb3aZXcyQtw/etw9smJAl + 8GRaHsrYAeG5Yhl1sv+oXfQge0GIonbOSIITWrvnngh8A8tD+jApV8E= +X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set8f/mflz76fK7YjsVKdQqn5fsf4zS0oLG46f/V54ig6k7XW6a6WEXAM0ZjxHG7orBP1ZvJEQUXzvwjPvi5CdH0= +X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:9505:b0:8ab:2b8b:143d with SMTP id + u5-20020a170906950500b008ab2b8b143dmr4332879ejx.7.1677717565237; Wed, 01 Mar + 2023 16:39:25 -0800 (PST) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +References: <CABrXkXoq4x9aRuk0ZnfPmqE-TXZfROMuAMTwCO9VCcTnJ+snNA@mail.gmail.com> +In-Reply-To: <CABrXkXoq4x9aRuk0ZnfPmqE-TXZfROMuAMTwCO9VCcTnJ+snNA@mail.gmail.com> +From: Nadav Ivgi <nadav@shesek.info> +Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2023 02:39:13 +0200 +Message-ID: <CAGXD5f2zQcS6rCEraNG9_h5E-9ZhFVf3iK_0Mbq7cdn6o6C1jA@mail.gmail.com> +To: Giuseppe B <beppeben2030@gmail.com>, + Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000827cbc05f5e00f55" +X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 02 Mar 2023 01:18:11 +0000 +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Minimum fees +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 +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: Thu, 02 Mar 2023 00:39:29 -0000 + +--000000000000827cbc05f5e00f55 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" + +Hi Giuseppe, + +One side-effect this has is that until enough fees accumulate in the +mempool to satisfy min_fees, the rational behaviour for miners would be to +try and fork the chain tip, competing for the fees in the latest block +(+whatever got into the mempool in the meanwhile and can fit in). This +could lead to increased reorgs/orphan rates and chain instability. It could +also lead to miners preferring to set their low_fee to zero, to avoid other +miners from forking their blocks off. + +I'm also not sure that this would actually change much. If humanity is +willing to spend X BTC/day on mining fees, it doesn't really matter if it's +spread out through fewer or more blocks. + +shesek + +On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 10:25 PM Giuseppe B via bitcoin-dev < +bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: + +> Hello everyone, +> +> I'm relatively new here so what I'm proposing could have already been +> discussed, or may be flawed or inapplicable. I apologize for that. +> +> I was picturing a situation where block rewards are almost zero, and the +> base layer is mainly used as a settlement layer for relatively few large +> transactions, since the majority of smaller ones goes through LN. +> +> In such a case it may very well be that even if transaction amounts are +> very consistent, transaction fees end up being very small since there is +> enough space for everyone in a block. Users wouldn't mind paying higher +> fees as they know that that would increase the network security, however +> nobody wants to be the only one doing that. Miners would of course like +> being paid more. So everyone involved would prefer higher fees but they +> just stay low because that's the only rational individual choice. +> +> Therefore I was imagining the introduction of a new protocol rule, +> min_fees, that would work like this: +> - the miner that gets to mine a block appends a min_fee field to the +> block, specifying the minimum fees that need to be contained in the +> following block in order for it to be valid. +> - one can also mine an empty block and reset the min_fee, to avoid the +> chain getting stuck. +> +> min_fees could either represent the total fees of the following block, or +> the minimal fee for each single transaction, as a percentage of the value +> transacted. Both seem to have some merits and some potential drawbacks. Of +> course min_fees=0 would correspond to the current situation. +> +> It looks to me that this could have the potential to bring the equilibrium +> closer to a socially optimal one (as opposed to individually optimal), and +> to benefit the network security in the long term. Of course it's just a +> rough sketch and it would deserve a much deeper analysis. I was just +> interested in knowing if you think that the principle has some merit or if +> it's not even worth discussing it for some reason that I'm not considering. +> +> Cheers, +> +> Giuseppe. +> +> _______________________________________________ +> bitcoin-dev mailing list +> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev +> + +--000000000000827cbc05f5e00f55 +Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hi Giuseppe,</div><div><br></div><div>One side-effect= + this has is that until enough fees accumulate in the mempool to satisfy mi= +n_fees, the rational behaviour for miners would be to try and fork the chai= +n tip, competing for the fees in the latest block (+whatever got into the m= +empool in the meanwhile and can fit in). This could lead to increased reorg= +s/orphan rates and chain instability. It could also lead to miners preferri= +ng to set their low_fee to zero, to avoid other miners from forking their b= +locks off.</div><div><br></div><div>I'm also not sure that this would a= +ctually change much. If humanity is willing to spend X BTC/day on mining fe= +es, it doesn't really matter if it's spread out through fewer or mo= +re blocks.</div><div><br></div><div>shesek<br></div></div><br><div class=3D= +"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at = +10:25 PM Giuseppe B via bitcoin-dev <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists= +.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<= +br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8e= +x;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"= +>Hello everyone,<div><br></div><div>I'm relatively new here so what I&#= +39;m proposing could have already been discussed, or may be flawed or inapp= +licable. I apologize for that.</div><div><br></div><div>I was picturing a s= +ituation where block rewards are almost zero, and the base layer is mainly = +used as a settlement layer for relatively few large transactions, since the= + majority of smaller ones goes through LN.</div><div><br></div><div>In such= + a case it may very well be that even if transaction amounts are very consi= +stent, transaction fees end up being very small since there is enough space= + for everyone in a block. Users wouldn't mind paying higher fees as the= +y know that that would increase the network security, however nobody wants = +to be the only one doing that. Miners would of course like being paid more.= + So everyone involved would prefer higher fees but they just stay low becau= +se that's the only rational individual choice.</div><div><br></div><div= +>Therefore I was imagining the introduction of a new protocol rule, min_fee= +s, that would work like this:=C2=A0</div><div>- the miner that gets to mine= + a block appends a min_fee field to the block, specifying the minimum fees = +that need to be contained in the following block in order for it to be vali= +d.</div><div>- one can also mine an empty block and reset the min_fee, to a= +void the chain getting stuck.</div><div><br></div><div>min_fees could eithe= +r represent the total fees of the following block, or the minimal fee for e= +ach single transaction, as a percentage of the value transacted. Both seem = +to have some merits and some potential drawbacks. Of course min_fees=3D0 wo= +uld correspond to the current situation.</div><div><br></div><div>It looks = +to me that this could have the potential to bring the equilibrium closer to= + a socially optimal one (as opposed to individually optimal), and to benefi= +t the network security in the long=C2=A0term. Of course it's just a rou= +gh sketch and it would deserve a much deeper analysis. I was just intereste= +d in knowing if you think that the principle has some merit or if it's = +not even worth=C2=A0discussing it for some reason that=C2=A0I'm=C2=A0no= +t considering.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div><br></div><div>Gi= +useppe.</div><div><br></div></div> +_______________________________________________<br> +bitcoin-dev mailing list<br> +<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">= +bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br> +<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" = +rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= +man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br> +</blockquote></div> + +--000000000000827cbc05f5e00f55-- + |