Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 01:54:47 +0100 (CET)
From: Prayank <prayank@tutanota.de>
To: aj@erisian.com.au
Message-ID: <Mw9Jjqo--3-2@tutanota.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
 boundary="----=_Part_107525_1382399782.1645145687161"
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Thoughts on fee bumping
Precedence: list

------=_Part_107525_1382399782.1645145687161
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> I suspect the "economically rational" choice would be to happily trade off that immediate loss against even a small chance of a simpler policy encouraging higher adoption of bitcoin, _or_ a small chance of more on-chain activity due to higher adoption of bitcoin protocols like lightning and thus a lower chance of an empty mempool in future.

Is this another way of saying a few developers will decide RBF policy for miners and they should follow it because it is the only way bitcoin gets more adoption? On-chain activity is dependent on lot of things. I suspect any change in policy will change it any time soon and miners should have the freedom to decide things that aren't consensus rules.

Lightning network contributes to on-chain activity only with opening and closing of channels. Based on the chart I see in the below link for channels opened/closed per block, its contribution is less than 1% in fees:

https://txstats.com/dashboard/db/lightning-network?orgId=1&from=now-6M&to=now

-- 
Prayank

A3B1 E430 2298 178F

------=_Part_107525_1382399782.1645145687161
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUTF-8=
">
  </head>
  <body>
<div>&gt; I suspect the "economically rational" choice would be to happily =
trade off that immediate loss against even a small chance of a simpler poli=
cy encouraging higher adoption of bitcoin, _or_ a small chance of more on-c=
hain activity due to higher adoption of bitcoin protocols like lightning an=
d thus a lower chance of an empty mempool in future.<br></div><div dir=3D"a=
uto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Is this another way of saying a few develo=
pers will decide RBF policy for miners and they should follow it because it=
 is the only way bitcoin gets more adoption? On-chain activity is dependent=
 on lot of things. I suspect any change in policy will change it any time s=
oon and miners should have the freedom to decide things that aren't consens=
us rules.<br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Lightning =
network contributes to on-chain activity only with opening and closing of c=
hannels. Based on the chart I see in the below link for channels opened/clo=
sed per block, its contribution is less than 1% in fees:<br></div><div dir=
=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">https://txstats.com/dashboard/db/ligh=
tning-network?orgId=3D1&amp;from=3Dnow-6M&amp;to=3Dnow<br></div><div><br></=
div><div>-- <br></div><div>Prayank<br></div><div><br></div><div dir=3D"auto=
">A3B1 E430 2298 178F<br></div>  </body>
</html>

------=_Part_107525_1382399782.1645145687161--