path: root/38/1a08339eb62900052b06c0729aa0d1385e2da1

Return-Path: <piverson1024@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60461CB2
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 21 Dec 2017 23:35:31 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wr0-f175.google.com (mail-wr0-f175.google.com
	[209.85.128.175])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4090B466
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 21 Dec 2017 23:35:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wr0-f175.google.com with SMTP id l41so14323204wre.11
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 21 Dec 2017 15:35:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; 
	bh=NIMGQGJEHOcRNY6qT2+syrdG75mETPBo92m656hF7uQ=;
	b=UpFnyUuaNRfllunJkQRcaXbYmNaoxtLAGVPggEs90ScLefB78rusmGjPLfeQKYexq4
	Tmrp2DRpH5lHxnOnZCSIxXRl8zP0kxITJUA9YsNo1bbTzdNj/fJkYMpkb82Oq5Ja3Mdj
	TXWoeOk395xbhDrkJ72qKS4C9/DeZm8l2TDBPIrqXUVGJYL+fmeyL3iblj7zxkZWYJgX
	eGiKa06PhkxzZN8hUYvHGD2s3jkfZA4QbWfWrf6gnMGaqyhljCfsOiQum2OyEcxt2p9W
	mHNkB23oE6gJ2rwCFh+Dnb4kjuLmWMtFfeDbhlE69mUYcsjXwVhZlMamHYwg9Dy4iV/r
	nWxA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to;
	bh=NIMGQGJEHOcRNY6qT2+syrdG75mETPBo92m656hF7uQ=;
	b=GIlOMhJE6eORUwr6LM6I6KlWBKlrtKn4lgUfBV22xsa15CHaxNgXN11K1mZU4f/tQS
	QAoeIscNgNcW8oEZt1ABJzAnTyMtWSXFYDaJ1RV9JiQ1ac2A9d51BpZqm8f1qcxyomrF
	MvdiHFle3axI9CVoE+bUMvcd/N1GIhDKtMLKDbA7YZjHDNOEzrW8OFi32HefAsWrd3Q7
	98TZrDmiQmKVLqY9HFmmG2wEfY9Q+HY5i3US4pbTn4dQvpmtf2tx7hhzvGN4u6+OcBm5
	yL+JeINsTxDz1kATcDGiN2FlqA8gQjAhn61PR/QRjBlyzO8iqQs6uOrXWF14QbXqYgOa
	rBrw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mIVWlI3t6NMiFMepfeLXmVfRhBmo5EUrpd6WYcnEYrqkktDSiL6
	jdQmBDq3HVrSjB4iU4NWASUOlQCI9y21BClH0wc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBov9Cd3RskNzoJuUYwAfQ7LNQ8GdGGfda75XpXd90GW3NMxTEeRCAydsXp40IVKwy4oDaT5Hc6di5zdzhvzuCPc=
X-Received: by 10.223.142.98 with SMTP id n89mr7080671wrb.120.1513899328865;
	Thu, 21 Dec 2017 15:35:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.132.34 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 15:35:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQSNdzuiPS3AZ_TjQ2OvkhYJ3ZJUBo7ovP6_O2snuwEMg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKaEYhJ0vC8wf9yYjovfoZLB-TTvEnVB2a3mkC-YDzmnLwtz1Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgQSNdzuiPS3AZ_TjQ2OvkhYJ3ZJUBo7ovP6_O2snuwEMg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Paul Iverson <piverson1024@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 15:35:28 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAeo5+gYrr=KaqrLibmAoUWG4F_EdR5SQTE9U6-jsYYVT23kTQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045d5b70b90a5d0560e22707"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,URIBL_RED autolearn=no 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, 21 Dec 2017 23:38:33 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Total fees have almost crossed the block reward
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 23:35:31 -0000

--f403045d5b70b90a5d0560e22707
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

I agree with Greg.  What is happening is a cause for celebration: it is the
manifestation of our long-desired fee market in action.  That people are
willing to pay upwards of $100 per transaction shows the huge demand to
transact on the world's most secure ledger. This is what success looks
like, folks!

Now that BTC is being phased out as a means of payment nearly everywhere
(e.g., Steam dropping BTC as a payment option) (to be replaced with the
more-suitable LN when ready), I'd propose that we address the stuck
transaction issue by making replace-by-fee (RBF) ubiquitous.  Why not make
every transaction RBF by default, and then encourage via outreach and
education other wallet developers to do the same?

The frustration with BTC today is less so the high-fees (people realize
on-chain transactions in a secure decentralized ledger are necessarily
costly) but by the feeling of helplessness when their transaction is
stuck.  Being able to easily bump a transaction's fee for users who are in
a hurry would go a long way to improving the user experience.

Paul.


On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Personally, I'm pulling out the champaign that market behaviour is
> indeed producing activity levels that can pay for security without
> inflation, and also producing fee paying backlogs needed to stabilize
> consensus progress as the subsidy declines.
>
> I'd also personally prefer to pay lower fees-- current levels even
> challenge my old comparison with wire transfer costs-- but we should
> look most strongly at difficult to forge market signals rather than
> just claims-- segwit usage gives us a pretty good indicator since most
> users would get a 50-70% fee reduction without even considering the
> second order effects from increased capacity.
>
> As Jameson Lopp notes, more can be done for education though-- perhaps
> that market signal isn't efficient yet. But we should get it there.
>
> But even independently of segwit we can also look at other inefficient
> transaction styles: uncompressed keys, unconfirmed chaining instead of
> send many batching, fee overpayment, etc... and the message there is
> similar.
>
> I've also seen some evidence that a portion of the current high rate
> congestion is contrived traffic. To the extent that it's true there
> also should be some relief there soon as the funding for that runs
> out, in addition to expected traffic patterns, difficulty changes,
> etc.
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Melvin Carvalho via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > I asked adam back at hcpp how the block chain would be secured in the
> long
> > term, once the reward goes away.  The base idea has always been that fees
> > would replace the block reward.
> >
> > At that time fees were approximately 10% of the block reward, but have
> now
> > reached 45%, with 50% potentially being crossed soon
> >
> > https://fork.lol/reward/feepct
> >
> > While this bodes well for the long term security of the coin, I think
> there
> > is some legitimate concern that the fee per tx is prohibitive for some
> use
> > cases, at this point in the adoption curve.
> >
> > Observations of segwit adoption show around 10% at this point
> >
> > http://segwit.party/charts/
> >
> > Watching the mempool shows that the congestion is at a peak, though it's
> > quite possible this will come down over the long weekend.  I wonder if
> this
> > is of concern to some.
> >
> > https://dedi.jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/more/#24h
> >
> > I thought these data points may be of interest and are mainly FYI.
> Though
> > if further discussion is deemed appropriate, it would be interesting to
> hear
> > thoughts.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--f403045d5b70b90a5d0560e22707
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">I agree with Greg.=C2=A0 What is happening is a cause for =
celebration: it is the manifestation of our long-desired fee market in acti=
on.=C2=A0 That people are willing to pay upwards of $100 per transaction sh=
ows the huge demand to transact on the world&#39;s most secure ledger. This=
 is what success looks like, folks!<div><br></div><div>Now that BTC is bein=
g phased out as a means of payment nearly everywhere (e.g., Steam dropping =
BTC as a payment option) (to be replaced with the more-suitable LN when rea=
dy), I&#39;d propose that we address the stuck transaction issue by making =
replace-by-fee (RBF) ubiquitous.=C2=A0 Why not make every transaction RBF b=
y default, and then encourage via outreach and education other wallet devel=
opers to do the same?=C2=A0=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>The frustration =
with BTC today is less so the high-fees (people realize on-chain transactio=
ns in a secure decentralized ledger are necessarily costly) but by the feel=
ing of helplessness when their transaction is stuck.=C2=A0 Being able to ea=
sily bump a transaction&#39;s fee for users who are in a hurry would go a l=
ong way to improving the user experience.=C2=A0=C2=A0</div><div><div><br></=
div><div>Paul.</div><div><br></div></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><=
br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Gregory Maxw=
ell via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lis=
ts.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation=
.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"ma=
rgin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Personally, I&=
#39;m pulling out the champaign that market behaviour is<br>
indeed producing activity levels that can pay for security without<br>
inflation, and also producing fee paying backlogs needed to stabilize<br>
consensus progress as the subsidy declines.<br>
<br>
I&#39;d also personally prefer to pay lower fees-- current levels even<br>
challenge my old comparison with wire transfer costs-- but we should<br>
look most strongly at difficult to forge market signals rather than<br>
just claims-- segwit usage gives us a pretty good indicator since most<br>
users would get a 50-70% fee reduction without even considering the<br>
second order effects from increased capacity.<br>
<br>
As Jameson Lopp notes, more can be done for education though-- perhaps<br>
that market signal isn&#39;t efficient yet. But we should get it there.<br>
<br>
But even independently of segwit we can also look at other inefficient<br>
transaction styles: uncompressed keys, unconfirmed chaining instead of<br>
send many batching, fee overpayment, etc... and the message there is<br>
similar.<br>
<br>
I&#39;ve also seen some evidence that a portion of the current high rate<br=
>
congestion is contrived traffic. To the extent that it&#39;s true there<br>
also should be some relief there soon as the funding for that runs<br>
out, in addition to expected traffic patterns, difficulty changes,<br>
etc.<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
<br>
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Melvin Carvalho via bitcoin-dev<br>
&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@li=
sts.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; I asked adam back at hcpp how the block chain would be secured in the =
long<br>
&gt; term, once the reward goes away.=C2=A0 The base idea has always been t=
hat fees<br>
&gt; would replace the block reward.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; At that time fees were approximately 10% of the block reward, but have=
 now<br>
&gt; reached 45%, with 50% potentially being crossed soon<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://fork.lol/reward/feepct" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=
=3D"_blank">https://fork.lol/reward/feepct</a><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; While this bodes well for the long term security of the coin, I think =
there<br>
&gt; is some legitimate concern that the fee per tx is prohibitive for some=
 use<br>
&gt; cases, at this point in the adoption curve.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Observations of segwit adoption show around 10% at this point<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"http://segwit.party/charts/" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_=
blank">http://segwit.party/charts/</a><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Watching the mempool shows that the congestion is at a peak, though it=
&#39;s<br>
&gt; quite possible this will come down over the long weekend.=C2=A0 I wond=
er if this<br>
&gt; is of concern to some.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://dedi.jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/more/#24h" rel=3D"nor=
eferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://dedi.jochen-hoenicke.<wbr>de/queue/more/=
#24h</a><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I thought these data points may be of interest and are mainly FYI.=C2=
=A0 Though<br>
&gt; if further discussion is deemed appropriate, it would be interesting t=
o hear<br>
&gt; thoughts.<br>
&gt;<br>
</div></div><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">&gt; __________________=
____________<wbr>_________________<br>
&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@l=
ists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-=
dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wb=
r>org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
&gt;<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

--f403045d5b70b90a5d0560e22707--