1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
|
Return-Path: <vjudeu@gazeta.pl>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CD9BC002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 27 Jul 2022 12:19:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1792E40424
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 27 Jul 2022 12:19:06 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 1792E40424
Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org;
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gazeta.pl header.i=@gazeta.pl
header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=2013 header.b=dLHozaD1
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id GtNKHDjQi-mY
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 27 Jul 2022 12:19:05 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 937EB40165
Received: from smtpo53.poczta.onet.pl (smtpo53.poczta.onet.pl
[213.180.142.184])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 937EB40165
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 27 Jul 2022 12:19:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pmq6v.m5r2.onet (pmq6v.m5r2.onet [10.174.33.77])
by smtp.poczta.onet.pl (Onet) with ESMTP id 4LtCW42CzgzmKJ;
Wed, 27 Jul 2022 14:18:56 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gazeta.pl; s=2013;
t=1658924336; bh=KsVcyj7pwBNudwV/ztokfnhARCPBO17AojfxWDZSDiE=;
h=From:To:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject:From;
b=dLHozaD1E2ARgq8K4FaiVICvRMlTzdwdlA5D0ecs75qmLW7YmL5xRY8YEqoURtA8t
QGzf8iQgqsnQmrIUIg+/HHvN6JhEsmFa6kpCHOdKE0qKfyjAuIVuEMDKv9ElFxthSj
AX5bcqj4txfwYLCARLwyY7GLZ3d+CU38LdixUpqk=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received: from [82.177.167.2] by pmq6v.m5r2.onet via HTTP id ;
Wed, 27 Jul 2022 14:18:56 +0200
From: vjudeu@gazeta.pl
X-Priority: 3
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
vjudeu via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
aaradhya@technovanti.co.in, Aaradhya Chauhan <chauhanansh.me@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BFCDB019-B2D3-4EBF-B31A-FDF6FEAFDFDE@petertodd.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2022 14:18:56 +0200
Message-Id: <72842561-5e8fd1668dcef89a8b26cb355de840df@pmq6v.m5r2.onet>
X-Mailer: onet.poczta
X-Onet-PMQ: <vjudeu@gazeta.pl>;82.177.167.2;PL;4
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 27 Jul 2022 14:28:14 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Regarding setting a lower minrelaytxfee
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: Wed, 27 Jul 2022 12:19:06 -0000
> It's pointless for individual nodes to make changes like this on their ow=
n.
It's pointless only if you assume that mining is centralized. And it's poin=
tless if you also assume that there is no batching. By using different sigh=
ashes, batching is definitely possible. In case of one-input-one-output tra=
nsactions, they should use SIGHASH_SINGLE|SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY, then it is =
possible to grab a lot of such transactions, and combine them all into a si=
ngle transaction, saving some bytes, so fees for each user can be lower tha=
n one satoshi per virtual byte, when it is counted in non-batched version. =
In general, it should be possible to use SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY by default, a=
nd use SIGHASH_PREVOUT_SOMETHING to make signatures from next transactions =
resistant to changes like adding more inputs and outputs.
> The only time those settings are useful is special situations like miners=
who want to push txs to their own memlools.
So they could be more useful, if it would be possible to mine a block with =
lower than required difficulty (a share), and be rewarded for that in P2P w=
ay. So, if some miner collected 7 BTC as a reward (6.25 BTC plus 0.75 BTC i=
n fees), then if that miner created 100 times easier block than needed, it =
should be rewarded with 0.07 BTC in a P2P way. And if block rewards are bas=
ed on fees, then it makes perfect sense to collect for example 0.07 BTC in =
transaction fees, and mine it, leaving the rest for other miners, then they=
will have an incentive to build on top of that.
On 2022-07-27 14:18:21 user Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> =
On July 27, 2022 6:10:00 AM GMT+02:00, vjudeu via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@=
lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> So I'd suggest removing the fixed dust limit entirely and relying purely=
on the mempool size limit to determine what is or is not dust.
>
>Just use those settings in your node:
>
>minrelaytxfee=3D0.00000000
>blockmintxfee=3D0.00000000
>dustrelayfee=3D0.00000000
>
>No changes in source code are needed, nodes can change their limits withou=
t asking anyone. And if some node is a miner, then it can be enforced. But =
if not, then still, free transactions are useful for communication (if more=
of them will be accepted, then we will switch to negative fee transactions=
with proper sighashes, then it will be very unlikely that miners will volu=
ntarily add coins, so it will remain useful for communication).
It's pointless for individual nodes to make changes like this on their own.=
Without like-minded peers this achieves nothing. What is relevant is netwo=
rk wide defaults.
The only time those settings are useful is special situations like miners w=
ho want to push txs to their own memlools. For the _vast_ majority of users=
changing defaults achieves absolutely nothing.
|
