MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAAUFj113g15EUXvdQG1caLBar6HakLRag6URA9Q-y52OZEmhzQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAUFj113g15EUXvdQG1caLBar6HakLRag6URA9Q-y52OZEmhzQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nadav Ivgi <nadav@shesek.info>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 19:36:30 +0300
Message-ID: <CAGXD5f3=H9TinyYh122oq1x+3exTyxvvAT1m_eiNY34Nhw7bcA@mail.gmail.com>
To: DKBryant@gmail.com, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000072bb2d05ad65d7d4"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Time to lower minrelaytxfee ?
Precedence: list

--00000000000072bb2d05ad65d7d4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Having large portions of the network using a different minrelayfee could
make it easier to reliably get different parts of the network to accept
different conflicting transactions into their mempools, which could
potentially be used to double-spend unconfirmed non-rbf transactions with
more ease. Node operators that accept unconfirmed payments with a
minrelayfee that's higher than what other nodes/miners are typically
accepting would be at risk.

Relying on unconfirmed transactions is of course discouraged so I'm not
sure how much weight this should be given if at all, but I thought it was
at least worth bringing up.

Nadav


On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 11:00 AM Dan Bryant via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> It's been 5 years since minrealytxfee was lowered.  At the time
> bitcoin was trading for $255 and it was agreed that the fee of 5000
> sat/vkB was too high.  It was lowered to 1000 sat/vkB.  In regards to
> how much anti-DoS protection that provided, it comes out to $0.00255 /
> vkB in USD terms.  To have parity with the last reduction, we would
> need to reduce minrealytxfee to 22 sat/vKB, though an even more
> conservative reduction to 100 or 50 sat/vKB would be welcome.
>
> With the growing adoption of LN, there is a need for ultra-low-fee
> on-chain TXNs.  Having these queue and confirm overnight, or even
> waiting until the Sunday lull would still probably be welcome to many
> users.  The fact that the mempool is going empty at least every week
> indicates that miners have not reached the floor of what they are
> willing to mine.
>
> About 2 years ago there was a PR (#13922) to try to make a reduction
> from 1000 to 200 sat/vkB.  It was widely accepted but the submitter
> eventually closed it in favor of PR #13990.
>
> If minrelaytxfee is already parameterized and configurable in
> bitcoin.conf, how could it be detrimental to operation of a node to
> change the default?
>
> References:
>
> *
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9e93640be6c49fa1505ba5c5df8c89210da5a6e4
> * https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13922
> * https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13990
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--00000000000072bb2d05ad65d7d4
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Having large portions of the network using a differen=
t minrelayfee could make it easier to reliably get different parts of the n=
etwork to accept different conflicting transactions into their mempools, wh=
ich could potentially be used to double-spend unconfirmed non-rbf transacti=
ons with more ease. Node operators that accept unconfirmed payments with a =
minrelayfee that&#39;s higher than what other nodes/miners are typically ac=
cepting would be at risk.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Relying on unconfirm=
ed transactions is of course discouraged so I&#39;m not sure how much weigh=
t this should be given if at all, but I thought it was at least worth bring=
ing up.</div><div><br></div><div>Nadav<br></div><br></div><br><div class=3D=
"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at=
 11:00 AM Dan Bryant via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@list=
s.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:=
<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8=
ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">It&#39;s been 5=
 years since minrealytxfee was lowered.=C2=A0 At the time<br>
bitcoin was trading for $255 and it was agreed that the fee of 5000<br>
sat/vkB was too high.=C2=A0 It was lowered to 1000 sat/vkB.=C2=A0 In regard=
s to<br>
how much anti-DoS protection that provided, it comes out to $0.00255 /<br>
vkB in USD terms.=C2=A0 To have parity with the last reduction, we would<br=
>
need to reduce minrealytxfee to 22 sat/vKB, though an even more<br>
conservative reduction to 100 or 50 sat/vKB would be welcome.<br>
<br>
With the growing adoption of LN, there is a need for ultra-low-fee<br>
on-chain TXNs.=C2=A0 Having these queue and confirm overnight, or even<br>
waiting until the Sunday lull would still probably be welcome to many<br>
users.=C2=A0 The fact that the mempool is going empty at least every week<b=
r>
indicates that miners have not reached the floor of what they are<br>
willing to mine.<br>
<br>
About 2 years ago there was a PR (#13922) to try to make a reduction<br>
from 1000 to 200 sat/vkB.=C2=A0 It was widely accepted but the submitter<br=
>
eventually closed it in favor of PR #13990.<br>
<br>
If minrelaytxfee is already parameterized and configurable in<br>
bitcoin.conf, how could it be detrimental to operation of a node to<br>
change the default?<br>
<br>
References:<br>
<br>
* <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9e93640be6c49fa1505b=
a5c5df8c89210da5a6e4" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.c=
om/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9e93640be6c49fa1505ba5c5df8c89210da5a6e4</a><br>
* <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13922" rel=3D"noreferr=
er" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13922</a><br>
* <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13990" rel=3D"noreferr=
er" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13990</a><br>
_______________________________________________<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>

--00000000000072bb2d05ad65d7d4--