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
|
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 CECCB89F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 5 Sep 2016 14:55:32 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ua0-f179.google.com (mail-ua0-f179.google.com
[209.85.217.179])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56CE0198
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 5 Sep 2016 14:55:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ua0-f179.google.com with SMTP id 31so27500721uao.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 05 Sep 2016 07:55:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=blockstream-io.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=dSw3+elRDrES6nAN4tQBe/AQBsGy2WQ0dZrb9hzRlfA=;
b=XNH7YgwkSHcmM2YjouR5mO873Ek9nXZHDvQyXDjb50So5xh4+U6T9xqwrAlnEHciRp
NSuE+cGTZKbt54lNZ86lt4KmqwqP3zhFq4LRLkXY5hz5rf0pUrpi94Zm6RVaPE5Rsjlx
TC9wN15eYhZ7i3G9rvVqor5gHyBXUVz5C3Ewyg3E2tyzNzrHf8nz50brBC/0Qp5gAJz5
1h5hD4qyxykLXzWXXZb+In068f1tRTHJM2+5Pbuip8jjVDvqPyxv5yZap3wM78UgdhA9
oNNUmXymevJLjgTbQLclkFVIVAFVPcgAhga4voeOlg5I1WR2iJLQwX0AnTYFUqCalCeb
B4wQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=dSw3+elRDrES6nAN4tQBe/AQBsGy2WQ0dZrb9hzRlfA=;
b=hzzV2ZjXr3RVZZPXhNw+1NpalfCCo0oAWw2QIRRsX3o5sP2P+zzd2KtdmBxa2juPM+
LUqlW7+niLkh/lJ9DzepFHFk4+q2637G/MyoZjssWC6gDtPm7KkI5d8q3MxwuD1VYEWv
ua2Sh7JwG6V1BN1TlMMPnabG0b3MvbueBOjNF6svQrtOpZLjlhcU9clOdIVZ8seuu+Ye
j1W9I5+qhEBeGPlBdKYhOnWOyaLBfXslUEaaLV1CQ2obYoi31Fgmq5mT23avw9K0z0Vn
3oONonfIZcRFJv1vyb4gel/PMDx9yqcRx7iTY5kBvpIxfAQI+TqKLgE1v7H60zX+yYYC
2vIw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwO1NTV7u6jnItpS0vEzrxEF6AEAWj6WtolXVcaAkQo0+qLe68exIxKrwhU+BdmVATPS7BOgh3ia9T4G1fv6
X-Received: by 10.159.32.105 with SMTP id 96mr11274365uam.115.1473087331353;
Mon, 05 Sep 2016 07:55:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.4.68 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 07:55:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBhykn8BU1LAr1izH0z6nFuOv0PzWjuqq7YJX5r35LDa9Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1736097121.90204.1471369988809@privateemail.com>
<201608161937.20748.luke@dashjr.org>
<20160816194332.GA5888@fedora-21-dvm>
<CAMZUoKkAkGRFxpyGMxQMz76L7uW6fsQAYVxkrxi5MQCiBtNnqw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBi30SgHHXCyipbNpiMRHYWPCRYz6ejQYKrDg3MLJp39EQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMZUoKktS=Ku4kpD0bocR4X__ZpWXrkPkdOyXBaYxjq+mr9Pmw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBhykn8BU1LAr1izH0z6nFuOv0PzWjuqq7YJX5r35LDa9Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Russell O'Connor" <roconnor@blockstream.io>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 10:55:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMZUoKnNHkUtiwT=PKg25HmiEFZQfXxY8P2G=QZ+NJZBQDTTcg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c03f16c1bd909053bc3df5b
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM 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: Mon, 05 Sep 2016 14:56:32 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] New BIP: Dealing with OP_IF and OP_NOTIF
malleability in P2WSH
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, 05 Sep 2016 14:55:32 -0000
--94eb2c03f16c1bd909053bc3df5b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
For sake of example, suppose we have a marginal fee rate of 50 satoshis per
byte. At that rate reducing the size of the witness data by 1 byte is
approximately equivalent from a miner and relayer's perspective as a
replace by fee that increases the fee by 50 satoshis. In both cases miners
get an extra potential of 50 satoshis in revenue.
So in this sense replacing witness data with smaller witness data can pay
for its own relay cost as much as RBF can simply by requiring that the
smaller witness be smaller enough to cover the same RBF threshold.
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Aug 17, 2016 00:36, "Russell O'Connor" <roconnor@blockstream.io> wrote:
>
> > Can I already do something similar with replace by fee, or are there
> limits on that?
>
> BIP125 and mempool eviction both require the replacing transaction to have
> higher fee, to compensate for the cost of relaying the replaced
> transaction(s).
>
> --
> Pieter
>
--94eb2c03f16c1bd909053bc3df5b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>For sake of example, suppose we have a marginal fee r=
ate of 50 satoshis per byte.=C2=A0 At that rate reducing the size of the wi=
tness data by 1 byte is approximately equivalent from a miner and relayer&#=
39;s perspective as a replace by fee that increases the fee by 50 satoshis.=
=C2=A0 In both cases miners get an extra potential of 50 satoshis in revenu=
e.<br><br></div><div>So in this sense replacing witness data with smaller w=
itness data can pay for its own relay cost as much as RBF can simply by req=
uiring that the smaller witness be smaller enough to cover the same RBF thr=
eshold.<br></div><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote">On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Pieter Wuille <span dir=3D"ltr"><<=
a href=3D"mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">pieter.wuille@g=
mail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span cl=
ass=3D""><p dir=3D"ltr">On Aug 17, 2016 00:36, "Russell O'Connor&q=
uot; <<a href=3D"mailto:roconnor@blockstream.io" target=3D"_blank">rocon=
nor@blockstream.io</a>> wrote:</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">> Can I already do something similar with replace by fee,=
or are there limits on that? </p>
</span><p dir=3D"ltr">BIP125 and mempool eviction both require the replacin=
g transaction to have higher fee, to compensate for the cost of relaying th=
e replaced transaction(s).</p><span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888=
">
<p dir=3D"ltr">-- <br>
Pieter</p>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
--94eb2c03f16c1bd909053bc3df5b--
|
