diff options
| author | Murch <murch@murch.one> | 2024-01-22 13:12:45 -0500 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2024-01-22 18:19:37 +0000 |
| commit | dd8b3730662c17228da0e6773163380dba79f7ba (patch) | |
| tree | 8d553b35be880ba7a54e3d9fa457c95ecfd69b7e | |
| parent | 7c8ae50a2719a71f4de60ca19f0022c86571c032 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-dd8b3730662c17228da0e6773163380dba79f7ba.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-dd8b3730662c17228da0e6773163380dba79f7ba.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] One-Shot Replace-By-Fee-Rate
| -rw-r--r-- | 08/ae4fe17d89599961a9249d9c7cb7f81e11ffa7 | 116 |
1 files changed, 116 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/08/ae4fe17d89599961a9249d9c7cb7f81e11ffa7 b/08/ae4fe17d89599961a9249d9c7cb7f81e11ffa7 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c6d43f870 --- /dev/null +++ b/08/ae4fe17d89599961a9249d9c7cb7f81e11ffa7 @@ -0,0 +1,116 @@ +Return-Path: <murch@murch.one> +Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) + by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00414C0037 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 22 Jan 2024 18:19:37 +0000 (UTC) +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A82918089E + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 22 Jan 2024 18:19:36 +0000 (UTC) +DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org A82918089E +X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: 1 +X-Spam-Level: * +X-Spam-Status: No, score=1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, + DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, + SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no +Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id 2rIrqgOnruuc + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 22 Jan 2024 18:19:35 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: delayed 400 seconds by postgrey-1.37 at util1.osuosl.org; + Mon, 22 Jan 2024 18:19:34 UTC +DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org EF57881405 +Received: from farbauti.uberspace.de (farbauti.uberspace.de [185.26.156.235]) + by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF57881405 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 22 Jan 2024 18:19:34 +0000 (UTC) +Received: (qmail 31008 invoked by uid 989); 22 Jan 2024 18:12:52 -0000 +Authentication-Results: farbauti.uberspace.de; + auth=pass (plain) +Received: from unknown (HELO unkown) (::1) + by farbauti.uberspace.de (Haraka/3.0.1) with ESMTPSA; + Mon, 22 Jan 2024 19:12:52 +0100 +Message-ID: <9a89eca8-61fd-4156-825d-c9b718dc3034@murch.one> +Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 13:12:45 -0500 +MIME-Version: 1.0 +User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird +Content-Language: en-US +To: Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +References: <Zalsq+Nq7RRr/CAR@petertodd.org> +From: Murch <murch@murch.one> +In-Reply-To: <Zalsq+Nq7RRr/CAR@petertodd.org> +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit +X-Rspamd-Bar: --- +X-Rspamd-Report: BAYES_HAM(-2.95226) XM_UA_NO_VERSION(0.01) MIME_GOOD(-0.1) +X-Rspamd-Score: -3.04226 +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=murch.one; s=uberspace; + h=from; bh=obQxK2riTele0BdOgb/R5gUxS/rpN3qtqy+TfS0oZXE=; + b=hnOmrO8Q57CVH8BvPC8GR5d2zSJ2cTM2AkgjzJh0GjTrM3ZekcjZl2qjHz7fBI0U8qvqd73LUO + sqnXbUEc0CEXxFJ/ZP32IyS5fzAC9QujRVyZuK99173tlg60r3Ea9DTnmCteaKg683jqH18eBCuZ + CVZQ7o5VqWnkWFtAqvKUgZCf6BP9n+6IJnXHK6SiYU2S9oPljWXY96lBTL4+WLGjkdjMGYJJ/vkd + UGBYA/7YDID2+TroEM/1/CbZabYRG6m/f0MlqLukjQ6iR9DqMkEMdWBG8cvi82y/71GSj1sHDFJY + b/iPBYn+XsgQhMnofffYSAkl4IXCljGR4Od8zj1KMDOlpoEO4QO+MfbPAS9Djt2zHQsonDHUCiEd + SsLRdIOK6Ts1WEXMPevhp7SxRpDnEcT48mISQJeqYwktbIzhmuMjg8DmgpYnQT3HKAndlBSmJo+7 + 2bLV47khfcDruMw4WE+7vKYaH1iB4lND/1Z6fcgP2e7T+0onDsLs6Z0stT9CDQbpIpdk+enZ/XwS + NLP1ZUI/XWEfKB3ExTzLcIqytixvyy0yL8RyejulIcSNXIKHPT5nlgQ4tfJzbCve0mok4h74fIwU + fi42NEN6QRyGdo54rcWPmTe4oBXYiNpmVmOtNrkm3C4AtmvVpVIG18KZgxcfnzRF8cbL8zMCoFDM + c= +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] One-Shot Replace-By-Fee-Rate +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: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 18:19:37 -0000 + +Hi Peter, + +On 1/18/24 13:23, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: + > Reposting this blog post here for discussion: + > + > https://petertodd.org/2024/one-shot-replace-by-fee-rate + +I saw your proposal mentioned on Stacker News and read it with interest. +In response, I described a replacement cycle that can be used to +broadcast the same five transactions repeatedly: + +https://stacker.news/items/393182 + +The gist is that by using two confirmed inputs and five transactions, +you can use RBFr to reduce the absolute fee while raising the feerate to +top block levels, then immediately use the current RBF rules to +introduce a high-feerate transaction that beats the RBFr transaction but +is hampered by a low-feerate parent and not attractive for mining, then +use RBF to replace its low-feerate parent, then use the RBFr transaction +again to reduce the absolute feerate. Due to the asymmetric +replacements, the same transactions can replace each other in that order +in every cycle. Please refer to the linked write-up for details, I’ve +included weights, fees, and a transaction graph to make my example +comprehensible. + +Among those five transactions, the only transaction attractive for block +inclusion would be the small RBFr transaction with a +bottom-of-the-next-block feerate. Today, if it were mined it would +amount to fees of around 4000 sats every few blocks to make the entire +network relay transactions of more than 205,000 vB every few seconds. +Given that my example is minimal, it should be possible to further +increase bandwidth cost. + +Assuming that I did not make a mistake, i.e. all the replacements are +viable and my scenario is compatible with your proposal, the described +One-Shot Replace-By-Fee-Rate proposal would not be safe for deployment +on the network. + +Best, +Murch + |