Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76146C002A for ; Wed, 10 May 2023 16:19:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 435556144D for ; Wed, 10 May 2023 16:19:12 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 435556144D Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gazeta.pl header.i=@gazeta.pl header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=2013 header.b=E0Ao6UX5 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8HGwAgtFC4t9 for ; Wed, 10 May 2023 16:19:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org B4BCB610F8 Received: from smtpa40.poczta.onet.pl (smtpa40.poczta.onet.pl [213.180.142.40]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4BCB610F8 for ; Wed, 10 May 2023 16:19:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pmq8v.m5r2.onet (pmq8v.m5r2.onet [10.174.35.145]) by smtp.poczta.onet.pl (Onet) with ESMTP id 4QGgFg30GfzlhVZY; Wed, 10 May 2023 18:19:03 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gazeta.pl; s=2013; t=1683735543; bh=5ZtW/Dkwh1YF/LcuTkCfOeaccF0iub2yrPXHSHd0Kbc=; h=From:To:Date:Subject:From; b=E0Ao6UX50s4PsYO/81Iwt/Oc0JnH66pGznb/oM2PDuB72Jr5GRZH5WiWn1uefnn4S YTxfcHpJ1w09JVg/e/96kwDh/YmfMKDH+St1qeR7eJbuL0skByZ3bN66EKxY0zRROM B98Ih2/1MR1NIXH55EMCRm3jOSw17CWHi4w+lHf8= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received: from [5.173.248.149] by pmq8v.m5r2.onet via HTTP id ; Wed, 10 May 2023 18:19:03 +0200 From: vjudeu@gazeta.pl X-Priority: 3 To: Erik Aronesty , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 18:19:01 +0200 Message-Id: <158873530-26c4ca5223c12fad28089c0ab56e9528@pmq8v.m5r2.onet> X-Mailer: onet.poczta X-Onet-PMQ: ;5.173.248.149;PL;2 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 10 May 2023 16:51:14 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] tx max fee 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: Wed, 10 May 2023 16:19:12 -0000 > possible to change tx "max fee" to output amounts? Is it possible? Yes. Should we do that? My first thought was "maybe", but a= fter thinking more about it, I would say "no", here is why: Starting point: 1 BTC on some output. Current situation: A single transaction moving 0.99999000 BTC as fees, and = creating 1000 satoshis as some output (I know, allowed dust values are lowe= r and depend on address type, but let's say it is 1k sats to make things si= mpler). And then, there is a room for other solutions, for example your rule, menti= oned in other posts, like this one: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/piper= mail/bitcoin-dev/2023-May/021626.html > probably easier just to reject any transaction where the fee is higher th= an the sum of the outputs Possible situation after introducing your proposal, step-by-step: 1) Someone wants to move 1 BTC, and someone wants to pay 0.99999000 BTC as = fees. Assuming your rules are on consensus level, the first transaction cre= ates 0.5 BTC output and 0.5 BTC fee. 2) That person still wants to move 0.5 remaining BTC, and still is willing = to pay 0.49999000 BTC as fees. Guess what will happen: you will see another= transaction, creating 0.25 BTC output, and paying 0.25 BTC fee. ... N) Your proposal replaced one transaction, consuming maybe one kilobyte, wi= th a lot of transactions, doing exactly the same, but where fees are distri= buted between many transactions. Before thinking about improving that system, consider one simple thing: is = it possible to avoid "max fee rule", no matter in what way it will be defin= ed? Because as shown above, the answer seems to be "yes", because you can a= lways replace a single transaction moving 1 BTC as fees with multiple trans= actions, each paying one satoshi per virtual byte, and then instead of cons= uming around one kilobyte, it would consume around 1 MvB per 0.01 BTC, so 1= 00 MvB per 1 BTC mentioned in the example above. On 2023-05-08 13:55:18 user Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote: possible to change tx "max fee"=C2=A0 to output amounts? seems like the only use case that would support such a tx is spam/dos type = stuff that satoshi warned about its not a fix for everything, but it seems could help a bit with certain at= tacks=C2=A0