Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 02:28:35 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Message-ID: <20180124072835.GB12767@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <M8yPGuNmrXfNNwrYDDLpTVb__BhGysVW060Cq_tMc-AC6F7pKd1Vvb4wWbpmhhEvfoQ7fn-EcgfxRwJSVkFAZ5x57hg9XxpdZlDPi2IBJZg=@protonmail.com>
	<20180122200023.GA1055@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CAAS2fgSJ=2GaX-fNRyZhwD=g6=v524hnD-dCqJicC-ak+La4PA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="+pHx0qQiF2pBVqBT"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSJ=2GaX-fNRyZhwD=g6=v524hnD-dCqJicC-ak+La4PA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Transaction Merging (bip125 relaxation)
Precedence: list


--+pHx0qQiF2pBVqBT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 09:31:00PM +0000, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:00 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > Most transactions don't have change?! Under what circumstance? For most
> > use-cases the reverse is true: almost all all transactions have change,=
 because
> > it's rare for the inputs to exactly math the requested payment.
>=20
> It's quite easy to get no change with a not-dumb algorithm selecting
> coins if you have a decent number of outputs well under the value
> you're paying.
>=20
> The number of ways n choose m combines grows exponentially, and you
> only need to get close enough over the right value so that you're
> paying excess fees equal or less than the cost of the change (which
> should include the current cost output itself as well as estimated
> cost of the future signature to spend it).
>=20
> Achow101 and Murch have code to implement an efficient algorithm for
> finding these solutions for Bitcoin core which will hopefully get in
> soon.

Oh, Bitcoin Core doesn't already do that? I though that was what the (rather
complex) knapsack code was supposed to be doing.

In any case, you're assuming that there actually are a large number of outp=
uts.
That's not likely to be the case in most "consumer-like" use-cases where the
number of deposits into the wallet is relatively low compared to the number=
 of
withdrawls as coins are spent in smaller amounts; that's the pattern most o=
f my
Bitcoin usage follows, particularly as I keep the amount of funds in my hot
wallets low.

Having said that, Rhavar's usage patterns could easily be different; I'd be
completely wrong in the case of a payment service for instance where a large
number of deposits are aggregated into a smaller number of payments; that
use-case happens to be a particularly interesting one for using tx replacem=
ent
to add outputs, so my criticism was definitely premature.

--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

--+pHx0qQiF2pBVqBT
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJaaDWfAAoJECSBQD2l8JH7UUwIAKNFzcTR1CV+3sRuIbJJSMOv
UFUPblJVbbkOcr/Qz0q3QYKf9J3TjtMrrKP+2KI+Weh1ZHGfPM05ZQJZP7PbfuAQ
BDTcenglQK3bx164NReAOwt08rFXjZZ6JFSIcxaQfmEGV82tXu6tpT9czsG1QW3p
s6NCu/99YkJpBQe23DsMa0G0HXrhHpNVOXWWqCUJ1WhV7WrxFxlmSkTc+PvPB6nF
MVqch/PVWq8auc+cbCU96j7ldBndBNGKw/Yvo0EpeTm8oYJ07kYWNLtHYqw7hHu9
Z1lJFslxWuFaWYDaT006kPFq2wYuGL4wzqkr8RzQLic4d+WjF1OCVBuAZxjTZ+Q=
=hv1t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--+pHx0qQiF2pBVqBT--