Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43F46C002D for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2022 03:38:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 259DF401DD for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2022 03:38:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 259DF401DD X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 XXytx23YVsfH for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2022 03:38:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org E7180401A0 Received: from smtpauth.rollernet.us (smtpauth.rollernet.us [IPv6:2607:fe70:0:3::d]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7180401A0 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2022 03:38:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtpauth.rollernet.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtpauth.rollernet.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52B16280006D; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 20:38:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.rollernet.us (webmail.rollernet.us [IPv6:2607:fe70:0:14::a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtpauth.rollernet.us (Postfix) with ESMTPSA; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 20:38:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 17:38:19 -1000 From: "David A. Harding" To: Peter Todd , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion In-Reply-To: References: User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.10 Message-ID: X-Sender: dave@dtrt.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rollernet-Abuse: Contact abuse@rollernet.us to report. Abuse policy: http://www.rollernet.us/policy X-Rollernet-Submit: Submit ID 5209.62e3562b.e028d.0 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Regarding setting a lower minrelaytxfee X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2022 03:38:24 -0000 On 2022-07-26 02:45, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 01:56:05PM +0530, Aaradhya Chauhan via > bitcoin-dev wrote: >> [...] in its early days, 1 sat/vB was a good dust protection >> measure. But now, I think it's a bit high [...] I think it can be done >> easily [...] > > [...] lowering the dust limit now is a good way to ensure > the entire ecosystem is ready to deal with those conditions. I don't have anything new to add to the conversation at this time, but I did want to suggest a clarification and summarize some previous discussion that might be useful. I think the phrasing by Aaradhya Chauhan and Peter Todd above are conflating the minimum output amount policy ("dust limit") with the minimum transaction relay feerate policy ("min tx relay fee"). Any transaction with an output amount below a node's configured dust limit (a few hundred sat by default) will not be relayed by that node no matter how high of a feerate it pays. Any transaction with feerate below a nodes's minimum relay feerate (1 sat/vbyte by default) will not be relayed by that node even if the node has unused space in its mempool and peers that use BIP133 feefilters to advertise that they would accept low feerates. Removing the dust limit was discussed extensively a year ago[1] with additional follow-up discussion about eight months ago.[2] Lowering the minimum relay feerate was seriously proposed in a patch to Bitcoin Core four years ago[3] with additional related PRs being opened to ease the change. Not all of the related PRs have been merged yet, and the original PR was closed. I can't easily find some of the discussions I remember related to that change, but IIRC part of the challenge was that lower minimum relay fees reduce the cost of a variety of DoS attacks which could impact BIP152 compact blocks and erlay efficiency, could worsen transaction pinning, may increase IBD time due to more block chain data, and have other adverse effects. Additionally, we've found in the past that some people who build systems that take advantage of low feerates become upset when feerates rise, sometimes creating problems even for people who prepared for eventual feerate rises. Compared to the complexity of lowering the minimum feerate, the challenges of preventing denial/degregation-of-service attacks, and dealing with a fragmented userbase, the economic benefit of reducing the feerates for the bottom of the mempool seems small---if we lower min feerates to 1/10th their current values and that results in the equivalent of an extra 10 blocks of transactions getting mined a day, then users save a total of 0.09 BTC (~$1,800 USD) per day and miners earn an extra 0.01 BTC ($200 USD) per day (assuming all other things remain equal).[4] -Dave [1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-August/019307.html [2] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-December/019635.html [3] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13922 [4] The current min relay fee is 1 sat/vbyte. There are ~1 million vbytes in a block that can be allocated to regular transactions. Ten blocks at the current min relay fee would pay (10 * 1e6 / 1e8 = 0.1 BTC) in fees. Ten blocks at 1/10 sat/vbyte would thus pay 0.01 BTC in fees, which is $200 USD @ $20k/BTC. Thus users would save (0.1 - 0.01 = 0.09 BTC = $1,800 USD @ $20k/BTC).