Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z2lXL-0003ZV-57 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 19:19:43 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.220.171 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.171; envelope-from=voisine@gmail.com; helo=mail-qk0-f171.google.com; Received: from mail-qk0-f171.google.com ([209.85.220.171]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z2lXK-0006Jz-0J for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 19:19:43 +0000 Received: by qkhq76 with SMTP id q76so30240966qkh.2 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:19:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.109.34 with SMTP id k31mr6156436qgf.94.1433963976544; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:19:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.91.37 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:19:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:19:36 -0700 Message-ID: From: Aaron Voisine To: Nathan Wilcox Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a7d0a7157bf05182ec163 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (voisine[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1Z2lXK-0006Jz-0J Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: SPV Fee Discovery mechanism X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 19:19:43 -0000 --001a113a7d0a7157bf05182ec163 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 It could be done by agreeing on a data format and encoding it in an op_return output in the coinbase transaction. If it catches on it could later be enforced with a soft fork. For real up-to-the-minute fee calculations you're also going to want to look at the current mempool, how many transactions are waiting, what fees they're paying, etc, but of course that information is susceptible to sybil attack. In practice what we're doing for now is using services like blockcypher who's business is improving reliability of zero-conf to tell us what fee-per-kb is needed, and then putting a hard coded range around it to protect against the service being compromised. This is also the kind of thing being done for exchange rate data which is probably the bigger security risk until bitcoin becomes the standard unit of account for the planet. Aaron Voisine co-founder and CEO breadwallet.com On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Nathan Wilcox wrote: > [I'm currently wading through bitcoin-development. I'm still about a month > behind, so I apologize in advance for any noisy redundancy in this post.] > > While reading about blocksize, I've just finished Mike Hearn's blog post > describing expected systemic behavior as actual blocks approach the current > limit (with or without non-protocol-changing implementation improvements): > > https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32 > > > One detail Mike uses to argue against the "fee's will save us" line of > reasoning is that wallets have no good way to learn fee information. > > So, here's a proposal to fix that: put fee and (and perhaps block size, > UTXO, etc...) statistics into the locally-verifiable data available to SPV > clients (ie: block headers). > > > It's easy to imagine a hard fork that places details like per-block total > fees, transaction count, fee variance, UTXO delta, etc... in a each block > header. This would allow SPV clients to rely on this data with the same > PoW-backed assurances as all other header data. > > This mechanism seems valuable regardless of the outcome of blocksize > debate. So long as fees are interesting or important, SPV clients should > know about them. (Same for other stats such as UTXO count.) > > Upgrading the protocol without a hard-fork may be possible and is left as > an exercise for the reader. ;-) > > -- > Nathan Wilcox > Least Authoritarian > > email: nathan@leastauthority.com > twitter: @least_nathan > PGP: 11169993 / AAAC 5675 E3F7 514C 67ED E9C9 3BFE 5263 1116 9993 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > --001a113a7d0a7157bf05182ec163 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It could be done by agreeing on a data format and encoding= it in an op_return output in the coinbase transaction. If it catches on it= could later be enforced with a soft fork.

For real up-t= o-the-minute fee calculations you're also going to want to look at the = current mempool, how many transactions are waiting, what fees they're p= aying, etc, but of course that information is susceptible to sybil attack.<= /div>

In practice what we're doing for now is using = services like blockcypher who's business is improving reliability of ze= ro-conf to tell us what fee-per-kb is needed, and then putting a hard coded= range around it to protect against the service being compromised. This is = also the kind of thing being done for exchange rate data which is probably = the bigger security risk until bitcoin becomes the standard unit of account= for the planet.

Aaron Voisine
co-founder and CEO
breadwallet.com

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Nathan Wil= cox <nathan@leastauthority.com> wrote:
[I'm currently wading throug= h bitcoin-development. I'm still about a month behind, so I apologize i= n advance for any noisy redundancy in this post.]

While readin= g about blocksize, I've just finished Mike Hearn's blog post descri= bing expected systemic behavior as actual blocks approach the current limit= (with or without non-protocol-changing implementation improvements):

https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e= 32


One detail Mike uses to argue against the &quo= t;fee's will save us" line of reasoning is that wallets have no go= od way to learn fee information.

So, here's a proposa= l to fix that: put fee and (and perhaps block size, UTXO, etc...) statistic= s into the locally-verifiable data available to SPV clients (ie: block head= ers).


It's easy to imagine a hard fork that place= s details like per-block total fees, transaction count, fee variance, UTXO = delta, etc... in a each block header. This would allow SPV clients to rely = on this data with the same PoW-backed assurances as all other header data.<= br>
This mechanism seems valuable regardless of the outc= ome of=20 blocksize debate. So long as fees are interesting or important, SPV=20 clients should know about them. (Same for other stats such as UTXO=20 count.)

Upgrading the protocol without a hard-fork may be= possible and is left as an exercise for the reader. ;-)
=
--
Nathan Wilcox
Least Authoritaria= n

email: nathan@leastauthority.com
twitter: @least_nathan
PGP: 1116999= 3 / AAAC 5675 E3F7 514C 67ED =C2=A0E9C9 3BFE 5263 1116 9993

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------

_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment


--001a113a7d0a7157bf05182ec163--