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
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
|
Return-Path: <willtech@live.com.au>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5937C6C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 3 Dec 2017 04:07:20 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from APC01-PU1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
(mail-oln040092254046.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.92.254.46])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D6313FB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 3 Dec 2017 04:07:18 +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=yAgG2aYJKy/62cwNjKMcRLqdwGi6KuFcMPVjWBJXCrs=;
b=JnynaNVkteQ6jC4enzEPgyYAJlwhatw5TO6/0QsO6LzvkK6vsbXuvap/72uT0H/k3mwlS7K0M7uZOFfaoarvyLY4zMTgnybYt8z+cLetLcXPqyuOdZQshWTrEq22qA5xuXBnU8rbyPv0QnQnvqGXJ2N2GPUKDth8QPTzWqz4D79IKY1I7icTif7Z8qB7yFCtzM5+wYgDe0JQbosct4p+p6QVUIQPK6lad8R6pTo8ao+P1ZVgDOS6J+bU63Syc6HHOJpvTccEqV70bCPjzF5JBdsUxBKHVnumwtOteUWfYbHHYYK3WRr+MeS903hXHIB//rCAE6Dxw/IHJ2OeFmns+A==
Received: from PU1APC01FT026.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com
(10.152.252.51) by PU1APC01HT024.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com
(10.152.253.46) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2,
cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.20.239.4;
Sun, 3 Dec 2017 04:07:16 +0000
Received: from PS2P216MB0179.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (10.152.252.55) by
PU1APC01FT026.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.252.235) 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; Sun, 3 Dec 2017 04:07:16 +0000
Received: from PS2P216MB0179.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([10.171.225.19]) by
PS2P216MB0179.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([10.171.225.19]) with mapi id
15.20.0282.007; Sun, 3 Dec 2017 04:07:16 +0000
From: Damian Williamson <willtech@live.com.au>
To: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Thread-Topic: BIP Proposal: UTWFOTIB - Use Transaction Weight For Ordering
Transactions In Blocks
Thread-Index: AQHTa+TfjIfbrac6DkW4WL8VVZ5YaQ==
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 04:07:16 +0000
Message-ID: <PS2P216MB01791F54380CD03B3936399E9D3F0@PS2P216MB0179.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Accept-Language: en-AU, en-US
Content-Language: en-AU
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:68EDE8FD7509A5038831F8946FED13A3EED08C72FD7D5462661F644FA66FC2DD;
UpperCasedChecksum:31ACB29332E5D2E8DF6A61C6E4145338A9B712FB726F6C34E8C821764DD01A1D;
SizeAsReceived:6977; Count:44
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-tmn: [X8xwGJ2R6hkD61xn51gWX0d0aZjHwWfU]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; PU1APC01HT024;
6:YtiZHmZUs4ErAUroIfiZAaGWsGfyqCPbx72sbEPszzRY1PbZD274sKnHiFFDEAQI15fJjMuzyObCzDjq9CLc0CjcQIaF/fixnt7iMEwga7My81KSXI6HLajCjD5LrvpebzqFefBzLHyKFPiiupDeoqmJTEzdku23IV/XKoZdKmJzWyz4myqVGUdOidCVopeE2nfc8DjRuD7JjlZP3QVXCdW5Ouh87RLH6uRinkS2qYYUELIyQrUBKpi821cnL7G/57D5XaMiOC65beNsOZSenSHJM9qw53LbHuyTOKVIdMeCtNCNWdMfFx/mSz6MhmfsH0qjrDtqTypLRp2qGpK/xL7SPwgzhk58R7mV8KrwvlY=;
5:zksfLIrQTrU8fluDowr9otFPsRqRWXlewoL5fBBrlTlmEm8dkTc1ts9wsmjuTCfJPR6TQ8crz5Rc/fPx3V++HtBMcWOXymA/4Jf9vZZi9KHCxMt2B7NW4DmnD72wNKtLufc24OWNqIdpLa5x0Ept3+Rl5pkSdXCAVPPVyQ4wOTg=;
24:nCh/DUCM6keWJSW8KvpVj3UaMH4N0UtkfCJRbmX7P2y5fgT25WVNeRDcXpC+N3dZRGSio8WIEYKwPrfC1L+VNvDHEqJDkC4lRN8jilC6U4Y=;
7:408Y9gOjDvIryCe1vI5wACWViZ6XVeDbLAwmb0D1E+cQ9tIx8JvmXg/1JM5vI34VGGvjPNa+oZJ1dVJaobEVaBx0IS18fK3kYthW9RBbDGLmA2I5NLKlKTTA62AKJsuW3PHaMZtqBOQltEsCJypbkYad+Z5kolG6ImIqZeEuVyWDAAPuPJwCy3BHolGbuuJa/9rrIijCB+4Wj6/Gf7zV+FnEjUrxh5SiTKV55dH52O6HioUK3rrmPyEWSbyc0Tks
x-incomingheadercount: 44
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0;
RULEID:(201702061074)(5061506573)(5061507331)(1603103135)(2017031320274)(2017031324274)(2017031323274)(2017031322404)(1601125374)(1603101448)(1701031045);
SRVR:PU1APC01HT024;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: PU1APC01HT024:
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 5e382148-da76-4fe1-d17f-08d53a035761
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(444000031);
SRVR:PU1APC01HT024; BCL:0; PCL:0;
RULEID:(100000803101)(100110400095); SRVR:PU1APC01HT024;
x-forefront-prvs: 05102978A2
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(7070007)(98901004); DIR:OUT;
SFP:1901; SCL:1; SRVR:PU1APC01HT024;
H:PS2P216MB0179.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_PS2P216MB01791F54380CD03B3936399E9D3F0PS2P216MB0179KORP_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 5e382148-da76-4fe1-d17f-08d53a035761
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Dec 2017 04:07:16.5165 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: PU1APC01HT024
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, 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: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 19:35:09 +0000
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: UTWFOTIB - Use Transaction Weight For
Ordering Transactions In Blocks
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: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 04:07:20 -0000
--_000_PS2P216MB01791F54380CD03B3936399E9D3F0PS2P216MB0179KORP_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
# BIP Proposal: UTWFOTIB - Use Transaction Weight For Ordering Transactions=
In Blocks
I admit, with my limited experience in the operation of the protocol, the s=
ection entitled 'Solution operation' may not be entirely correct but you wi=
ll get the idea. If I have it wrong, please correct it back to the list.
## The problem:
Everybody wants value. Miners want to maximize revenue from fees. Consumers=
want transaction reliability and, (we presume) low fees.
Current transaction bandwidth limit is a limiting factor for both.
## Solution summary:
Provide each transaction with a transaction weight, being a function of the=
fee paid (on a curve), and the time waiting in the transaction pool (also =
on a curve) out to n days (n=3D30 ?); the transaction weight serving as the=
likelihood of a transaction being included in the current block, and then =
use a target block size.
Protocol enforcement to prevent high or low blocksize cheating to be handle=
d by having the protocol determine the target size for the current block us=
ing; current transaction pool size x ( 1 / (144 x n days ) ) =3D transactio=
ns to be included in the current block.
The curves used for the weight of transactions would have to be appropriate=
.
## Pros:
* Maximizes transaction reliability.
* Maximizes possibility for consumer and business uptake.
* Maximizes total fees paid per block without reducing reliability; because=
of reliability, confidence and uptake are greater; therefore, more transac=
tions and more transactions total at priority fees.
* Market determines fee paid for transaction priority.
* Fee recommendations work all the way out to 30 days or greater.
* Provides additional block entropy and greater security since there is les=
s probability of predicting the next block.
## Cons:
* ?
* Must be first be programmed.
* Anything else?
## Solution operation:
As I have said, my simplistic view of the operation. If I have this wrong, =
please correct it back to the list.
1. The protocol determines the target block size.
2. Assign each transaction in the pool a transaction weight based on fee an=
d time waiting in the transaction pool.
3. Begin selecting transactions to include in the current block using trans=
action weight as the likelihood of inclusion until target block size is met=
.
4. Solve block.
Regards,
Damian Williamson
--_000_PS2P216MB01791F54380CD03B3936399E9D3F0PS2P216MB0179KORP_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-=
1">
<style type=3D"text/css" style=3D"display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margi=
n-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir=3D"ltr">
<div id=3D"divtagdefaultwrapper" style=3D"font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font=
-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;" dir=3D"ltr">
<p style=3D"margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0"># BIP Proposal: UTWFOTIB - Use Tr=
ansaction Weight For Ordering Transactions In Blocks<br>
</p>
<br>
I admit, with my limited experience in the operation of the protocol, the s=
ection entitled 'Solution operation' may not be entirely correct but you wi=
ll get the idea. If I have it wrong, please correct it back to the list.<br=
>
<br>
<p style=3D"margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">## The problem:<br>
</p>
<br>
<p style=3D"margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">Everybody wants value. Miners wan=
t to maximize revenue from fees. Consumers want transaction reliability and=
, (we presume) low fees.<br>
</p>
<br>
Current transaction bandwidth limit is a limiting factor for both.<br>
<br>
<p style=3D"margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">## Solution summary:<br>
</p>
<br>
<p style=3D"margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">Provide each transaction with a t=
ransaction weight, being a function of the fee paid (on a curve), and the t=
ime waiting in the transaction pool (also on a curve) out to n days (n=3D30=
?); the transaction weight serving
as the likelihood of a transaction being included in the current block, an=
d then use a target block size.
<br>
</p>
<br>
Protocol enforcement to prevent high or low blocksize cheating to be handle=
d by having the protocol determine the target size for the current block us=
ing; current transaction pool size x ( 1 / (144 x n days ) ) =3D transactio=
ns to be included in the current block.<br>
<br>
The curves used for the weight of transactions would have to be appropriate=
.<br>
<br>
<p style=3D"margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">## Pros:<br>
</p>
<br>
* Maximizes transaction reliability.<br>
* Maximizes possibility for consumer and business uptake.<br>
* Maximizes total fees paid per block without reducing reliability; because=
of reliability, confidence and uptake are greater; therefore, more transac=
tions and more transactions total at priority fees.<br>
* Market determines fee paid for transaction priority.<br>
<p style=3D"margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">* Fee recommendations work all th=
e way out to 30 days or greater.<br>
</p>
* Provides additional block entropy and greater security since there is les=
s probability of predicting the next block.<br>
<br>
<p style=3D"margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">## Cons:<br>
</p>
<br>
* ?<br>
* Must be first be programmed.<br>
* Anything else?<br>
<br>
<p style=3D"margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">## Solution operation:<br>
</p>
<br>
<p style=3D"margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">As I have said, my simplistic vie=
w of the operation. If I have this wrong, please correct it back to the lis=
t.<br>
</p>
<br>
1. The protocol determines the target block size.<br>
<p style=3D"margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">2. Assign each transaction in the=
pool a transaction weight based on fee and time waiting in the transaction=
pool.<br>
</p>
<p style=3D"margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">3. Begin selecting transactions t=
o include in the current block using transaction weight as the likelihood o=
f inclusion until target block size is met.<br>
</p>
4. Solve block.<br>
<br>
<p style=3D"margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">Regards,</p>
<p style=3D"margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">Damian Williamson<br>
</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
--_000_PS2P216MB01791F54380CD03B3936399E9D3F0PS2P216MB0179KORP_--
|
