path: root/c6/543b040aecfb204254ca3eeb9b33dec0473304

Return-Path: <antoine.riard@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F9F0C000B
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue,  1 Feb 2022 00:42:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 578BB4015F
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue,  1 Feb 2022 00:42:40 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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
Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id kcgC5Gh6T6E3
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue,  1 Feb 2022 00:42:39 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-wr1-x42c.google.com (mail-wr1-x42c.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42c])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C30C340120
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue,  1 Feb 2022 00:42:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id s9so28663236wrb.6
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 31 Jan 2022 16:42:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112;
 h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
 bh=TyqNktyJdc4Ux73CxWz7HUMTjusDsSCAXWv/VqSb1O4=;
 b=M2nz4DJnVbuGOpI4Qzz6nMkEyN5XV5jjakMpN/Ljrth3lKkxuQ2jrEbYxxFaCIHk+6
 gP+YUHQU117BZMmBM0Sxh67lYHd1klpPy2tfrSe/8mjAZhyoZsQnzDJkmrXTI+JGOPqg
 XxTcRhui0riUYb+0H2cJVo/3F1iwHkJl5p3HYA1XYuC6jPxugJCCLx1jrcn4QvGh77Q6
 FP5F07gRxy40Wotyk6zTVm5AQm3l+xrc5eqq+PN/ZHoxy/eA6fv4NFtrN1+sSZlPlD6w
 kPoL6VOOKKMlpDszoazOYtH8REynSGdxSabXYOVWQQmcnq4T5eagTJU3/S3afNm6ZacA
 RbdA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to;
 bh=TyqNktyJdc4Ux73CxWz7HUMTjusDsSCAXWv/VqSb1O4=;
 b=565T5nIg7y3Zb5TOdf+S8Kx/aL1KkG+VxyHxPucKLInCKFYasHj3m1VyGzXEBoY2If
 dnwFpoMVXmrbUooXMvoMp5ar9HlFR7WLCqvuZv6jAXdbQ7EUBKHWi/4y+flrEZlu/z6L
 XeYB9DVkExeGlJRH8ewH/r19UEc5bXMFdr6igh/JyxL+R+b+RG3s7R7/ISHXVkBLLS1v
 hfwjIcr+QM5QkkVVsoj0GfNJmBXmM0TM760Kx/xHQNdYnXaNIyPiR7+4NxR7dCCVq88R
 7/LwNi3Uy7sLoZMAzVem0/YT4H1LWcIEIueEtd6iU5ja4wdsNPDLRz5ZM4Hwz0JHRulO
 3WJA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532naElMkpc2uWNuuXPtrRBtYxBPqUvsuNBI5uzIgML1K3Kl77JC
 bKGbH1TfeuCIukVba5j8rhMLKqOv0NFBUHAdDfJPnWDypGE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwOBiAPmqXVAVOJGS3ZAK7IByiS+lASFZrAR5plhOehNzWz/AuaMi7j+GmKUBOxBqsQKde0X4fSbgZpAtM8qu4=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4dc6:: with SMTP id f6mr19099415wru.255.1643676156975; 
 Mon, 31 Jan 2022 16:42:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <mailman.19693.1643292568.8511.bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
 <CAHUJnBA7AtX_osJUJQyKmc5QBknH5U0TKU3hiyxzpPv4TN88JQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHUJnBA7AtX_osJUJQyKmc5QBknH5U0TKU3hiyxzpPv4TN88JQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Antoine Riard <antoine.riard@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 19:42:24 -0500
Message-ID: <CALZpt+HdN9G-a7U2ff7OQQ=BZTV9Fr57w7aFaTRidX0y6syPGQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bram Cohen <bram@chia.net>, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000765de105d6ea2d56"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 00:45:40 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Improving RBF policy
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: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 00:42:40 -0000

--000000000000765de105d6ea2d56
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> Is it still verboten to acknowledge that RBF is normal behavior and
disallowing it is the feature, and that feature is mostly there to appease
some people's delusions that zeroconf is a thing? It seems a bit overdue to
disrespect the RBF flag in the direction of always assuming it's on.

If you're thinking about the opt-in flag, not the RBF rules, please see
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-June/019074.ht=
ml
The latest state of the discussion is here :
https://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/2021-10-21.log
A gradual, multi-year deprecation sounds to be preferred to ease adaptation
of the affected Bitcoin applications.

Ultimately, I think it might not be the last time we have to change
high-impact tx-relay/mempool rules and a more formalized Core policy
deprecation process would be good.



Le lun. 31 janv. 2022 =C3=A0 18:15, Bram Cohen via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> a =C3=A9crit :

> Gloria Zhao wrote:
>
>>
>> This post discusses limitations of current Bitcoin Core RBF policy and
>> attempts to start a conversation about how we can improve it,
>> summarizing some ideas that have been discussed. Please reply if you
>> have any new input on issues to be solved and ideas for improvement!
>>
>
> Is it still verboten to acknowledge that RBF is normal behavior and
> disallowing it is the feature, and that feature is mostly there to appeas=
e
> some people's delusions that zeroconf is a thing? It seems a bit overdue =
to
> disrespect the RBF flag in the direction of always assuming it's on.
>
>
>> - **Incentive Compatibility**: Ensure that our RBF policy would not
>>   accept replacement transactions which would decrease fee profits
>>   of a miner. In general, if our mempool policy deviates from what is
>> economically rational, it's likely that the transactions in our
>> mempool will not match the ones in miners' mempools, making our
>> fee estimation, compact block relay, and other mempool-dependent
>> functions unreliable. Incentive-incompatible policy may also
>> encourage transaction submission through routes other than the p2p
>> network, harming censorship-resistance and privacy of Bitcoin payments.
>>
>
> There are two different common regimes which result in different
> incentivized behavior. One of them is that there's more than a block's
> backlog in the mempool in which case between two conflicting transactions
> the one with the higher fee rate should win. In the other case where ther=
e
> isn't a whole block's worth of transactions the one with higher total val=
ue
> should win. It would be nice to have consolidated logic which handles bot=
h,
> it seems the issue has to do with the slope of the supply/demand curve
> which in the first case is gentle enough to keep the one transaction from
> hitting the rate but in the second one is basically infinite.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--000000000000765de105d6ea2d56
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div>&gt; Is it still verboten to acknowled=
ge that RBF is normal behavior and
 disallowing it is the feature, and that feature is mostly there to=20
appease some people&#39;s delusions that zeroconf is a thing? It seems a bi=
t
 overdue to disrespect the RBF flag in the direction of always assuming=20
it&#39;s on.<br><br></div>If you&#39;re thinking about the opt-in flag, not=
 the RBF rules, please see <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pip=
ermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-June/019074.html">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org=
/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-June/019074.html</a><br></div>The latest state =
of the discussion is here : <a href=3D"https://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/=
2021-10-21.log">https://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/2021-10-21.log</a><br><=
/div>A gradual, multi-year deprecation sounds to be preferred to ease adapt=
ation of the affected Bitcoin applications.<br><br></div> Ultimately, I thi=
nk it might not be the last time we have to change high-impact tx-relay/mem=
pool rules and a more formalized Core policy deprecation process would be g=
ood.<br><div><div><div><br><div><br></div></div></div></div></div><br><div =
class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">Le=C2=A0lun. 31=
 janv. 2022 =C3=A0=C2=A018:15, Bram Cohen via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundati=
on.org</a>&gt; a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quot=
e" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204)=
;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">Gloria Zhao wrote:</di=
v><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar=
gin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1=
ex"><br>
This post discusses limitations of current Bitcoin Core RBF policy and<br>
attempts to start a conversation about how we can improve it,<br>
summarizing some ideas that have been discussed. Please reply if you<br>
have any new input on issues to be solved and ideas for improvement!<br></b=
lockquote><div><br></div><div>Is it still verboten to acknowledge that RBF =
is normal behavior and disallowing it is the feature, and that feature is m=
ostly there to appease some people&#39;s delusions that zeroconf is a thing=
? It seems a bit overdue to disrespect the RBF flag in the direction of alw=
ays assuming it&#39;s on.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_=
quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,=
204);padding-left:1ex">- **Incentive Compatibility**: Ensure that our RBF p=
olicy would not<br>
=C2=A0 accept replacement transactions which would decrease fee profits<br>
=C2=A0 of a miner. In general, if our mempool policy deviates from what is<=
br>
economically rational, it&#39;s likely that the transactions in our<br>
mempool will not match the ones in miners&#39; mempools, making our<br>
fee estimation, compact block relay, and other mempool-dependent<br>
functions unreliable. Incentive-incompatible policy may also<br>
encourage transaction submission through routes other than the p2p<br>
network, harming censorship-resistance and privacy of Bitcoin payments.<br>=
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>There are two different common regimes whi=
ch result in different incentivized behavior. One of them is that there&#39=
;s more than a block&#39;s backlog in the mempool in which case between two=
 conflicting transactions the one with the higher fee rate should win. In t=
he other case where there isn&#39;t a whole block&#39;s worth of transactio=
ns the one with higher total value should win. It would be nice to have con=
solidated logic which handles both, it seems the issue has to do with the s=
lope of the supply/demand curve which in the first case is gentle enough to=
 keep the one transaction from hitting the rate but in the second one is ba=
sically infinite.</div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>

--000000000000765de105d6ea2d56--