path: root/79/576b832163c2d15a67a13a7f2e85cbc755685f

Return-Path: <antoine.riard@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1279C002D
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 24 Aug 2022 01:56:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B84A260B08
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 24 Aug 2022 01:56:27 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org B84A260B08
Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org;
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com
 header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=ehH0ZFD1
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.698
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
 HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
 SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id t1LoNJSdJzZe
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 24 Aug 2022 01:56:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 597E560A8C
Received: from mail-il1-x12a.google.com (mail-il1-x12a.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12a])
 by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 597E560A8C
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 24 Aug 2022 01:56:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-il1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id a9so8071322ilr.12
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 23 Aug 2022 18:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112;
 h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references
 :mime-version:from:to:cc;
 bh=uBjwAjd7wWfnvSO0qgK5Tg9VZJMXUdzaAWUVcxg6Vc8=;
 b=ehH0ZFD16amA8xvCky1D1uSsBQ657+bVHzavyeKeVTVvYnW7z/kBNnJhiOsAbuS2+S
 PhxI9Wh3ts7jWGog+dPGsgj0MA5cZlYh59gAGPnzHC6fua90A9j/Yg6U+eBUOvSnYPG6
 32tCKnNtQjUfPCHuCAr+XTmJT0Jt6WrHzljuaHli9AP+i0YZalSp1dXbkDNo8d2tzCIG
 iGz7yT2jj90YgvFtqsnzW0lkd7fElpXRQwP89+cPLZW/GNF8iHE75IRVwG3/mXKWUx6K
 Nl57rykLIzAUlyhMJAbU37wQIM09ISrCWpD69Qm7AsWI+lglrarQKgBTguaBGcbU+cLn
 qbyw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
 h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references
 :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc;
 bh=uBjwAjd7wWfnvSO0qgK5Tg9VZJMXUdzaAWUVcxg6Vc8=;
 b=UdF0JBZXVEUZ54xoI3rLplFdai11eTjRPubVq9Sh9G4+RLFfAzH+5Vo7KeWJWt7822
 5bPU41kTyOehKLvbkbyydtpNvllTNlhPAbRe0yeuyFp+zP7LyKV8PwY9UVE2wPviBGE1
 X6ok2XR1ELQErPUbNzGsaC4EfRtYKK+hUUVcnExAqY/YCljjcoNkh9llON4t4XPTJ0io
 YuhUwVLXpggrbWDtR+6rk8Vg8QZbowR05EqvA7Mnp8gguXINbCilZpjMM6QQLto06bme
 QMttMtMyu+vO+CFlo585WZV7a1kuPlHxEUdmzAOkaWEL38s6YydMKXGHH7XYb4xx7cID
 Wu0g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo2VZesfnLsfPmH6uy461vdvIuK8vLXq9EV9KeKQW3Q1cNey7MNl
 jmToaTfgmpCnGAyxDhYWa/lv3GGjsLQSQSWYiQk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR6nCC2Rz7lVbh9iH0tVmCWUSfx2cRXLz4yGt2EypBdWpp3xmlBdHEebJEdzVWmNeGA6uHKuoQrpztoBkCQsRBs=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1c42:b0:2e7:d72c:befe with SMTP id
 d2-20020a056e021c4200b002e7d72cbefemr1136487ilg.250.1661306185156; Tue, 23
 Aug 2022 18:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALZpt+GOh-7weEypT9JrzcwthZJqHOfj7sf9FMuqi5_FZv0g7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <YrEHo+3XLDNgIOnz@petertodd.org>
 <CALZpt+EL=k_6iE5B950oz3EdLaQbRvgCNYZ8Lko4fcONcACvfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <YrS7a0E7xLswLD92@petertodd.org>
In-Reply-To: <YrS7a0E7xLswLD92@petertodd.org>
From: Antoine Riard <antoine.riard@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 02:56:14 +0100
Message-ID: <CALZpt+Hppw+5cRtjkxvmf94h+AvfthnfeeZGyxVKLq7EM9UHhA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000078b3905e6f2fda2"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 02:06:12 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Playing with full-rbf peers for fun and L2s
	security
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, 24 Aug 2022 01:56:28 -0000

--000000000000078b3905e6f2fda2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> I'd suggest doing that right now, without waiting for the patch to get
merged,
> as it improves the politics of getting the patch merged. Miners tend to
run
> customized bitcoind's anyway.

Philosophically, I think we're better off arguing code patches free from a
political framework and rather reasoning from scientific or engineering
principles. If a change is adopted it should be in the name of making the
whole system better, making the new situation a win-win game.

That said, and more pragmatically, now that the full-rbf patch is merged in
Core there is the pedagogical work of explaining the fee upsides of turning
on full-rbf setting to enough miners. AFAIK, we don't have public,
broadcast-all communication channels between developers and mining
operators to exchange on software upgrades (e.g Stratum V2). I think I'm
left with the process of reaching out to miner one by one.

Le jeu. 23 juin 2022 =C3=A0 20:13, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> a =C3=A9=
crit :

> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 07:45:48PM -0400, Antoine Riard wrote:
> > > BTW I changed one of my OTS calendars to issue fee-bumping txs withou=
t
> the
> > > opt-in RBF flag set as an experiment. I also made sure txs would
> > propagate to
> > > the above node. As of right now, it's up to 32 replacements (once per
> > block),
> > > without any of them mined; the calendars use the strategy of starting
> at
> > the
> > > minimum possible fee, and bumping the fee up every time a new block
> > arrives
> > > without the tx getting mined. So that's evidence we don't have much
> > full-rbf
> > > hash power at this moment.
> > >
> > > You can see the current status at:
> > https://alice.btc.calendar.opentimestamps.org/
> >
> > That's interesting. I'm not sure if we can conclude of the absence of
> > full-rbf hash power at this moment, as it could also be a lack of
> full-rbf
> > propagation path towards such potential hash power. I think the day we
> see
> > an opt-out replacement transaction mined, it would constitute a good hi=
nt
> > of full-rbf hash power (assuming the tx-relay topology stays relatively
> > stable across the transaction issuance...)
>
> Fees are relatively low right now, so there could be 1% or so of full-rbf
> hash
> power and I wouldn't notice with this particular technique as the initial
> tx
> gets mined within 10-20 blocks; a few years back similar experiments were
> finding a few percentage points of hashing power running full-rbf.
>
> > Anyway, if/when the `fullrbf` patch lands in Bitcoin Core, including
> > automatic outbound connections to few `NODE_REPLACE_BY_FEE` peers, I'm
> > thinking of reaching out to a few mining node operators to advocate the=
m
> > with the new policy setting.
>
> I'd suggest doing that right now, without waiting for the patch to get
> merged,
> as it improves the politics of getting the patch merged. Miners tend to r=
un
> customized bitcoind's anyway.
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>

--000000000000078b3905e6f2fda2
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>&gt; I&#39;d suggest doing that righ=
t now, without waiting for the patch to get merged,<br></div><div>&gt; as i=
t improves the politics of getting the patch merged. Miners tend to run<br>=
&gt; customized bitcoind&#39;s anyway.<div><br></div><div>Philosophically, =
I think we&#39;re better off arguing code patches free from a political fra=
mework and rather reasoning from scientific or engineering principles. If a=
 change is adopted it should be in the name of making the whole system bett=
er, making the new situation a win-win game.</div><div><br></div><div>That =
said, and more pragmatically, now that the full-rbf patch is merged in Core=
 there is the pedagogical work of explaining the fee upsides of turning on =
full-rbf setting to enough=C2=A0miners. AFAIK, we don&#39;t have public, br=
oadcast-all communication channels between developers and mining operators =
to exchange on software upgrades (e.g Stratum V2). I think I&#39;m left wit=
h the process of reaching out to miner one by one.=C2=A0</div></div></div><=
br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">L=
e=C2=A0jeu. 23 juin 2022 =C3=A0=C2=A020:13, Peter Todd &lt;<a href=3D"mailt=
o:pete@petertodd.org" target=3D"_blank">pete@petertodd.org</a>&gt; a =C3=A9=
crit=C2=A0:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px =
0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-col=
or:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 07:45:48PM -0=
400, Antoine Riard wrote:<br>
&gt; &gt; BTW I changed one of my OTS calendars to issue fee-bumping txs wi=
thout the<br>
&gt; &gt; opt-in RBF flag set as an experiment. I also made sure txs would<=
br>
&gt; propagate to<br>
&gt; &gt; the above node. As of right now, it&#39;s up to 32 replacements (=
once per<br>
&gt; block),<br>
&gt; &gt; without any of them mined; the calendars use the strategy of star=
ting at<br>
&gt; the<br>
&gt; &gt; minimum possible fee, and bumping the fee up every time a new blo=
ck<br>
&gt; arrives<br>
&gt; &gt; without the tx getting mined. So that&#39;s evidence we don&#39;t=
 have much<br>
&gt; full-rbf<br>
&gt; &gt; hash power at this moment.<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; You can see the current status at:<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://alice.btc.calendar.opentimestamps.org/" rel=3D"nore=
ferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://alice.btc.calendar.opentimestamps.org/</a=
><br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; That&#39;s interesting. I&#39;m not sure if we can conclude of the abs=
ence of<br>
&gt; full-rbf hash power at this moment, as it could also be a lack of full=
-rbf<br>
&gt; propagation path towards such potential hash power. I think the day we=
 see<br>
&gt; an opt-out replacement transaction mined, it would constitute a good h=
int<br>
&gt; of full-rbf hash power (assuming the tx-relay topology stays relativel=
y<br>
&gt; stable across the transaction issuance...)<br>
<br>
Fees are relatively low right now, so there could be 1% or so of full-rbf h=
ash<br>
power and I wouldn&#39;t notice with this particular technique as the initi=
al tx<br>
gets mined within 10-20 blocks; a few years back similar experiments were<b=
r>
finding a few percentage points of hashing power running full-rbf.<br>
<br>
&gt; Anyway, if/when the `fullrbf` patch lands in Bitcoin Core, including<b=
r>
&gt; automatic outbound connections to few `NODE_REPLACE_BY_FEE` peers, I&#=
39;m<br>
&gt; thinking of reaching out to a few mining node operators to advocate th=
em<br>
&gt; with the new policy setting.<br>
<br>
I&#39;d suggest doing that right now, without waiting for the patch to get =
merged,<br>
as it improves the politics of getting the patch merged. Miners tend to run=
<br>
customized bitcoind&#39;s anyway.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
<a href=3D"https://petertodd.org" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http=
s://petertodd.org</a> &#39;peter&#39;[:-1]@<a href=3D"http://petertodd.org"=
 rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">petertodd.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div>

--000000000000078b3905e6f2fda2--