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
|
Return-Path: <roconnor@blockstream.io>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D558D63
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 21 May 2018 14:21:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-it0-f48.google.com (mail-it0-f48.google.com
[209.85.214.48])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8DE36F8
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 21 May 2018 14:21:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-it0-f48.google.com with SMTP id n64-v6so21224476itb.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 21 May 2018 07:21:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=blockstream.io; s=google;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=TDu/ecd9XutE8A8Oty9Vz+Ga/oXomJ9XjFjtc4LFhoY=;
b=RmYnMcjjHkq+c+VT576M8kYnAVk6gxuknnRDmhpHRDpscsX1oL+Yczi0nyORDvrWmE
AloQbqTtSrHgGynmOGdC+tdB+7mXzoB8UjlA5T11OLMw9cqVdgZ2nKs1MGTo7LSuPVCr
pawQ2bBJuxa8gohyAXVdVjxJwC6KBTIh99XII=
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=TDu/ecd9XutE8A8Oty9Vz+Ga/oXomJ9XjFjtc4LFhoY=;
b=XLBVkFGF0MxNnsRiDY+6w/ABupj/9CbGsL7GmVRm/36iAYhqsdGXl85rEbC8rT7ZMC
NPU2yqPWxU0lhmjmkrxwo7EBCXy32WOl+zmatpMXOLk6Nvgnk0w38Lil0nX1qpOb0B0h
09Ko/5xSIE4QZd2eyXqnYBD2rUugCReTEXful+oryynNoBykJWzVRkgsu2wOX4WiFSvi
ZLhwVqJq8xbnjClfDLcDu7Y7E2xS7ZLVWDmm+2F3ISdBUGauO2t5psJFzeNO98YwYfW/
tZ6JN9cHZwd8OwPj52k5N1nHguXFc4uOSHUVvrDge3QF+/3elNnyM9RxzGyy2/Q2zpuV
MZog==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwdU21qpRBBZ7xB85VRsiFnD8xtjcP4dUlDC6qzHrwdoE8Zg0n1C
rNGAI7dvsIT473je10DJFKHKusZ0RID5dHsBhb5e3A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZoIV4gam0/Qnn7hjxjuBLYN9perclD1U1SQGYrQtakLzlXQc0GOq0oh7uVfDFTcHbUWFOf40C9LjJfE+/xZ6Tc=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:6f0e:: with SMTP id
x14-v6mr17428660itb.38.1526912460055;
Mon, 21 May 2018 07:21:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a02:1086:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Mon, 21 May 2018 07:20:39
-0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <87zi0tisft.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
References: <87po25lmzs.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
<201805100227.42217.luke@dashjr.org>
<87vabnq9ui.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
<CADZtCShwOV+GuJ5__GMi9hd2_X=BztASPBihDXakU3Mjb39wcQ@mail.gmail.com>
<87zi0tisft.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
From: "Russell O'Connor" <roconnor@blockstream.io>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 10:20:39 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMZUoK=ihVJ_x4LY0N6xVgoqqnvLOurtAQHuW1H2Jd_Z1vo61g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c8fde6056cb80276"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, 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
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making OP_TRUE standard?
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: Mon, 21 May 2018 14:21:01 -0000
--000000000000c8fde6056cb80276
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
In the thread "Revisting BIP 125 RBF policy" @
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-February/015717.html
and
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-March/015797.html
I propose replacing rule 3 with a rule that instead demands that the
replacement package fee rate exceeds the package fee rate of the original
transactions, and that there is an absolute fee bump of the particular
transaction being replaced that covers the min-fee rate times the size of
the mempool churn's data size.
Perhaps this would address your issue too Rusty.
On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 11:44 PM, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Jim Posen <jim.posen@gmail.com> writes:
> > I believe OP_CSV with a relative locktime of 0 could be used to enforce
> RBF
> > on the spending tx?
>
> Marco points out that if the parent is RBF, this child inherits it, so
> we're actually good here.
>
> However, Matt Corallo points out that you can block RBF will a
> large-but-lowball tx, as BIP 125 points out:
>
> will be replaced by a new transaction...:
>
> 3. The replacement transaction pays an absolute fee of at least the sum
> paid by the original transactions.
>
> I understand implementing a single mempool requires these kind of
> up-front decisions on which tx is "better", but I wonder about the
> consequences of dropping this heuristic? Peter?
>
> Thanks!
> Rusty.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
--000000000000c8fde6056cb80276
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra">In the thread "Revisting B=
IP 125 RBF policy" @ <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipe=
rmail/bitcoin-dev/2018-February/015717.html">https://lists.linuxfoundation.=
org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-February/015717.html</a> and <a href=3D"http=
s://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-March/015797.html"=
>https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-March/015797.=
html</a> I propose replacing rule 3 with a rule that instead demands that t=
he replacement package fee rate exceeds the package fee rate of the origina=
l transactions, and that there is an absolute fee bump of the particular tr=
ansaction being replaced that covers the min-fee rate times the size of the=
mempool churn's data size.<br><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Per=
haps this would address your issue too Rusty.<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_=
extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 11:44 PM, Rus=
ty Russell via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-=
dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfou=
ndation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" styl=
e=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);paddin=
g-left:1ex"><span class=3D"gmail-">Jim Posen <<a href=3D"mailto:jim.pose=
n@gmail.com">jim.posen@gmail.com</a>> writes:<br>
> I believe OP_CSV with a relative locktime of 0 could be used to enforc=
e RBF<br>
> on the spending tx?<br>
<br>
</span>Marco points out that if the parent is RBF, this child inherits it, =
so<br>
we're actually good here.<br>
<br>
However, Matt Corallo points out that you can block RBF will a<br>
large-but-lowball tx, as BIP 125 points out:<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0will be replaced by a new transaction...:<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A03. The replacement transaction pays an absolute fee of at leas=
t the sum<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 paid by the original transactions.<br>
<br>
I understand implementing a single mempool requires these kind of<br>
up-front decisions on which tx is "better", but I wonder about th=
e<br>
consequences of dropping this heuristic?=C2=A0 Peter?<br>
<br>
Thanks!<br>
<span class=3D"gmail-HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888">Rusty.<br>
</font></span><div class=3D"gmail-HOEnZb"><div class=3D"gmail-h5">_________=
_____________________<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></div>
--000000000000c8fde6056cb80276--
|
