Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1E8FBCA for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:15:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-oln040092003091.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.92.3.91]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8F7F413 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:15:03 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=live.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=5qnQfxr6rer8LvxGhWCK4+8pGSJADfcsl/Jq2zSLRfA=; b=B6L8Ye7Tl3DL2Q41XsEf0oFe/4M8jtUiu4HaVdrd4crslQJWTzQJv/AikV0FbKNOMAX05MX9CniPOuvM9kL23oiHq0L1apQB/G9Puh41eKmQ9xB1EynlCY0wb8rAPFIet1kjFnx8sHlLquWD5WLj0W/jl8+7m55JvSXfs6zL20SD5Veg+VkUEfsnTShZ9BHW5IIo2GHEomGYvID1FPMjkuUsmrk5E359T4dR1E/GJgi3/J6aGdgGK3lm7sawAmKGvgNFnMhZzRwSs3hOPAGa6BrMaQooHuCxe22f2Mzavf0M+lJTIE5RvmvYfjywifmVQgUqrjeI5kO0PfsbGznuCQ== Received: from BL2NAM02FT006.eop-nam02.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.76.53) by BL2NAM02HT014.eop-nam02.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.77.67) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.20.239.4; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:15:01 +0000 Received: from CY4PR1201MB0197.namprd12.prod.outlook.com (10.152.76.54) by BL2NAM02FT006.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.76.239) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.20.239.4 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:15:02 +0000 Received: from CY4PR1201MB0197.namprd12.prod.outlook.com ([10.172.78.142]) by CY4PR1201MB0197.namprd12.prod.outlook.com ([10.172.78.142]) with mapi id 15.20.0282.006; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:15:01 +0000 From: Chenxi Cai To: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Thread-Topic: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Idea: Marginal Pricing Thread-Index: AQHTaXYDAdcte2AYf0yDClJRYfgWrqMsXzJ0gAAQMwCAAKPD2IAABpr5 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:15:01 +0000 Message-ID: References: , , In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:0684B27CAE9995703A8D55A2F9ED2B6721E9B7F40424EFEB0AE5700FA399C316; UpperCasedChecksum:262E408C4573B61EF4407FBCE9832A4D07DF753C0248F4578DE9CBB5AE55EEC2; SizeAsReceived:7338; Count:46 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-tmn: [w5mRpR+kteykLomyOwahQQO4FT1EyyqR] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BL2NAM02HT014; 6:zlDqIJrNRNSUVwG8bWrxoPA573SUuopgBMiUaf+e+vYKiLxZ30OiNBYCfmKczhoP5QaqHdJTp/ztBGzxsLx5zNaLS9ojsYebNQVHDmaSi1gXfp4HeE177fSM69E8M/CiKdF8mu+aTzRRb0ARIDT9t+sz1w4ReFOWQ3jnWHi6E+0ErTPwt2FxPYzP2ti2kD75NExnCcNysFUZdofvaqhjOxFfllb5VjKO/AjVXlJC8nL39qcI6jdpkq3F7o5LKdE0VfOooCunu++HIxovBPA6/7lo9qEnpU9XG02u0zPi4NxDyvsVrfL5osSONaPtRP1iLmrJPrwHgkn8lPxDwfAawuEdTzdVPGa5c5Z8l9GIzL0=; 5:HBPvB+beMbypGbhMtnGIvmYKXEmmU0S0hntYmTt9knXZdKI1ChpQ21eU4BM/L0QE3W/ZMKKOpvhrPwHsPtPbrPmbyvaHcyoNHFGxLrr3fU/M1N+4EsVXPeLDN/tXD5YgWmSh/I8NDsvV57oAvXFQCs6kSE0nX2rIK0WpomgOBW4=; 24:15yuerlXNbSfLSZTUcPOklQ9Bxn5tJzcII+ziZg7qy8Y6rRXg84ybTKSbMSS/8j3j3JbnT3cFRENP0b+W+epXRUNoQOwI0tbTu2A3KGAkik=; 7:iC3Fls7PKY2XxIl4sRBSc+GKuhaYS4HFoToCnsWRt8x9x0B5tpjTjQQxzdkXaYqU53NNPQkcCrpW7pvvCehNJlxE3B8M7ujZKUs4jhRkNs+06nA3BFTlPkGvqwSMfSJGIWN/maQMEC4m9NJIF7CBd04OaUcrQWwR3zQ+ktWLmD5dNkg7226zzgvxMBqMn92jrAP0/b2AT9S1fTUZb00f5R10cbNZgC2dEJwHqS1wu7kNjf6Za/hJ49mLDT9zXfUx x-incomingheadercount: 46 x-eopattributedmessage: 0 x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(201702061074)(5061506573)(5061507331)(1603103135)(2017031320274)(2017031324274)(2017031323274)(2017031322404)(1603101448)(1601125374)(1701031045); SRVR:BL2NAM02HT014; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BL2NAM02HT014: x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 59c38fdc-5ba1-4831-5e74-08d5380d829c x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(444000031); SRVR:BL2NAM02HT014; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000803101)(100110400095); SRVR:BL2NAM02HT014; x-forefront-prvs: 05079D8470 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(7070007)(98901004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1901; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2NAM02HT014; H:CY4PR1201MB0197.namprd12.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:; spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CY4PR1201MB019798D1013AE2296AC0F30086380CY4PR1201MB0197_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: live.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 59c38fdc-5ba1-4831-5e74-08d5380d829c X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 30 Nov 2017 16:15:01.8715 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BL2NAM02HT014 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:23:12 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Idea: Marginal Pricing X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:15:04 -0000 --_000_CY4PR1201MB019798D1013AE2296AC0F30086380CY4PR1201MB0197_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It is clear that charging min fee won't maximize total miner's fees because= it ignores heterogeneity in willingness to pay among bidders within the sa= me block. Also, spamming can still occur by setting a large number of trans= actions to the min fee. Competition between spammers might drive up the min= fee, which is really where the positive effect comes from in this model. A two-part pricing scheme involving a fixed fee per transaction plus variab= le fee per byte is likely to work much better. The fixed fee component rais= es the cost of micro-transactions substantially and deters spamming of the = mempool. Also, revenue is not lost from people with higher willingness to = pay. Chenxi ________________________________ From: William Morriss Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 11:05 PM To: Chenxi Cai Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Idea: Marginal Pricing On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Chenxi Cai > wrote: Hi All, Auction theory is a well-studied problem in the economics literature. Curre= ntly what bitcoin has is Generalized first-price auction, where winning bid= ders pay their full bids. Alternatively, two approaches are potentially via= ble, which are Generalized second-price auction and Vickrey=96Clarke=96Grov= es auction. Generalized second-price auction, where winning bidders pay the= ir next highest bids, reduces (but not eliminate) the need for bidders to s= trategize by allowing them to bid closer to their reservation price. Vickre= y=96Clarke=96Groves auction, a more sophisticated system that considers all= bids in relation to one another, elicit truthful bids from bidders, but ma= y not maximize miners' fees as the other two systems will. Due to one result called Revenue Equivalence, the choice of fee design will= not impact miners' fees unless the outcomes of the auction changes (i.e, t= he highest bidders do not always win). In addition, the sole benefit of sec= ond-price auction over first-price auction is to spare people's mental trou= bles from strategizing, rather than actually saving mining fees, because in= equilibrium the fees bidders pay remain the same. Therefore, in balance, I= do not see substantial material benefits arising from switching to a diffe= rent fee schedule. Best, Chenxi Cai Changing the bidding system to the marginal price allows us to supersede th= e block size limit, which changes the outcome of the auction, as different = transactions are included. --_000_CY4PR1201MB019798D1013AE2296AC0F30086380CY4PR1201MB0197_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


 

It is clear that charging m= in fee won't maximize total miner's fees because it ignores heterogene= ity in willingness to pay among bidders within the same block. Also, s= pamming can still occur by setting a large number of transactions to the min fee. Competition between spammers might drive u= p the min fee, which is really where the positive effect comes from in this= model. 


A two-part pricing scheme involv= ing a fixed fee per transaction plus variable fee per byte is likely to wor= k much better. The fixed fee component raises the cost of micro-transaction= s substantially and deters spamming of the mempool.  Also, revenue is not lost from people with high= er willingness to pay. 


Chenxi

From: William Morriss <= ;wjmelements@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 11:05 PM
To: Chenxi Cai
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Idea: Marginal Pricing
 
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Chenxi Cai = <Chenxi_Cai@liv= e.com> wrote:

Hi All,


Auction theory is a well-stu= died problem in the economics literature. Currently what bitcoin = has is Generalized first-price auction, where winning bidders pay thei= r full bids. Alternatively, two approaches are potentially viable, which are Generalized second-price auction and Vickrey= =96Clarke=96Groves auction. Generalized second-price auction, where wi= nning bidders pay their next highest bids, reduces (but not eliminate)= the need for bidders to strategize by allowing them to bid closer to their reservation price. Vickrey=96Clarke=96Groves a= uction, a more sophisticated system that considers all bids in relatio= n to one another, elicit truthful bids from bidders, but may not maximize m= iners' fees as the other two systems will. 


Due to one result calle= d Revenue Equivalence, the choice of fee design will not im= pact miners' fees unless the outcomes of the auction changes (i.e, the= highest bidders do not always win). In addition, the sole benefit of second-price auction over first-price auction is to spare = people's mental troubles from strategizing, rather than actually savin= g mining fees, because in equilibrium the fees bidders pay remain the same.= Therefore, in balance, I do not see substantial material benefits arising from switching to a differ= ent fee schedule. 


Best,

Chenxi Cai



Changing the bidding system to the marginal price allows us to superse= de the block size limit, which changes the outcome of the auction, as diffe= rent transactions are included.
--_000_CY4PR1201MB019798D1013AE2296AC0F30086380CY4PR1201MB0197_--