Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 00:55:18 +0000
To: simondev1 <random@gmx.ch>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <j9Yc7SPFXCH_C3wUJs5oZwwdEWQnnfcfJ_DW_DJCCH1QYCr4N9ABx3-IG9mMxKAFKHmaWE_K_XIT5hwK8aV8pGpuVYZr13sl5KQSO88vPgk=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <trinity-9a1b0170-a250-4c06-a8e1-0f281499c4da-1554627046019@3c-app-gmx-bs53>
References: <trinity-9a1b0170-a250-4c06-a8e1-0f281499c4da-1554627046019@3c-app-gmx-bs53>
Feedback-ID: el4j0RWPRERue64lIQeq9Y2FP-mdB86tFqjmrJyEPR9VAtMovPEo9tvgA0CrTsSHJeeyPXqnoAu6DN-R04uJUg==:Ext:ProtonMail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] new BIP: Self balancing between excessively
	low/high fees and block size
Precedence: list

Good morning simondev1,

It seems the algorithm would greatly increase validation time.
In particular, if the current limit is removed (as in hardforked proposal) =
then a 1Tb block can be used to attack the network, since sorting would req=
uire looking through the entire block.
Thus, validation time would still limit the practical block sizes that can =
be deployed with this.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original Me=
ssage =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90
On Sunday, April 7, 2019 4:50 PM, simondev1 via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Dear bitcoin developers,
> =C2=A0
> New BIP: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/774
> =C2=A0
> =3D=3DAbstract=3D=3D
> Logarithm of transaction fee limits block size.
> =C2=A0
> =3D=3DMotivation=3D=3D
> Keep block space small.
> Waste less with spam transactions.
> Auto balance Fees: Increase very low fees, Descrease very high fees.
> Allow larger size when sender pays a lot.
> Allow wallets to calculate/display how much average free block space ther=
e is for each fee price.
> Allow senders to have more control about how the fee/priority of their tr=
ansaction will behave, especially in the case of increased adoption in the =
future.
> =C2=A0
> =3D=3DSpecification=3D=3D
> Every transaction has to fit into the following block space:
> Input variable 'FeeInSatoshiPerByte': Must be positive or 0
> type: double
> unit: Satishi per byte
> Output:
> type: uint
> unit: bytes
> Formula:
> floor( log10( 1.1 + FeeInSatoshiPerByte ) * 1024 * 1024 )
> =C2=A0
> =3D=3DImplementation=3D=3D
> Sort transactions by FeeInSatoshiPerByte (lowest first)
> For each transaction starting from lowest FeeInSatoshiPerByte: Sum up the=
 bytes of space used so far. Check if summed up bytes of space used so far =
is smaller or equal than the formula result.
> If this is valid for each transaction then the blocksize is valid.
> =C2=A0
> =3D=3DBackward compatibility=3D=3D
> Soft fork: If applied AND old hardcoded block size limit is kept.
> Hard fork: If applied AND old hardcoded block size limit is removed.
>
> Regards, simondev1
>