Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3D0B10AE for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 22:49:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f49.google.com (mail-vk0-f49.google.com [209.85.213.49]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9136D134 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 22:49:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f49.google.com with SMTP id t4so1362717vkb.9 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:49:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=yFBR949umg+72hQ0j3IXxCgVVHJMHt5Y/vuHkXUXY0w=; b=ZymCVXDlytbNAK8p/dg8dDFN0EDsWl8krK/j3mPauWMs/EfKfFjEPWAN3I4N7yAaXv ZT3I09LoYXA1JH+etdhu0xM5vfQgMBOfPwVQ321vZE2yuNnLKdDpk2j3qn2JgAksOViZ 1VHsRELGpD1IvTE6qx5BjtWQjoL4gKX1+PF7Wx+CUYiIuKeGgK8joIos4tAO5yl6r3Vj xeBFiVfR3U+ogIhVDMbOsNgKeiJKe7XphRE8tSHZ9wz8bJbZ0ieNVFvlYUgZRaf2jXL4 xWRqeRR0MvREkWlkxngVH48Osnj5j854H0gVJutEY8/QiAuwpBDuxH3dKQey3D/C448K 2G4Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=yFBR949umg+72hQ0j3IXxCgVVHJMHt5Y/vuHkXUXY0w=; b=LtZm1dsBJp1JXO9/EhNgevfqucDOhwERaOXkkytlinVrmuz8xzG3VYwsEaey5v5YTu oPVAZwyLk/d2oIH6c7Fkze3UIOnQi9lB4UpdRRUZYD6jryLBoBHf+Gq1bNMNyRqZV5Y+ MXq0ZHS9jhoUnTtNuuSuz08I8nfCOr7plaPTeSv8OvlkawwxW5tOegAPNQazkrHbvMJI d1vavK0Zl0nDOuEqhnExnPB8gjPYm8OTQNMkTufXbFEuNjZdwwHtcxCzbzactuQMonbn mVTN3zWeaMaU6xYc/cf+C/QSLT3g88KKUf6BR8Z1r2PxWrlii6FlWBFsTUQ6AAOuZcV7 yfww== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytd+Rn/zB86xjly2Tzig5chEoL545ZWjqSzSnkrglXmOKSooS6lx 6h7ZJSb9nfnfoccdtRzE4G8/OJ1gvyv5Q1UUGr8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x227VzXiK97rLM6LFnHhOXsmsmYCHcHaIAivvHVT71moicvRjQx+g1L6Ynvuy6VPNhZD+suW924ZdL1RgR3kaUYQ= X-Received: by 10.31.168.20 with SMTP id r20mr2902737vke.149.1516747774800; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:49:34 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com Received: by 10.103.78.155 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:49:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20180122200023.GA1055@savin.petertodd.org> <7yyS0mCgC8UWMYR_Jf1hB_GkkGj6Iu8tnIO7TeXWWyCrg9j4RZ7ziprCPZcv2xsFZdUzcFuHyeMU2-RBujzlSXdUAWlqdricuL2abaX0PWE=@protonmail.com> From: Gregory Maxwell Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 22:49:34 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: JbHG7G5VQGHND5b6BXPZflyAW08 Message-ID: To: Rhavar , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Transaction Merging (bip125 relaxation) 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: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 22:49:36 -0000 On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:19 PM, Rhavar via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Interesting. I didn't think about this before, but it seems like bip125 is > rather incentive incompatible right now? If we're assuming a competitive > mempool, it really doesn't seem generally rational to accept a replacement > transaction of a lower fee rate. BIP125 replacement requires that the fee rate increases. The text of the BIP document is written in a confusing way that doesn't make this clear.