Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YxLtv-0004Ru-Jo for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 26 May 2015 20:56:39 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mail-ig0-f177.google.com ([209.85.213.177]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YxLtq-0001gb-Cz for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 26 May 2015 20:56:39 +0000 Received: by igbpi8 with SMTP id pi8so68796454igb.1 for ; Tue, 26 May 2015 13:56:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=PJtssXAapL9kf7EvgSDZ+WTrR4twkDEcWlJZJuePsaw=; b=c9JKkUNboDh0YY8t+egY5cDtwPLR4hNUYRzqBWg512ykQW8oG5t5jshiXbPsWVie6m oEhBfI/h3cwKuSe0hWIxj/BMgU5PaF5KNfBeFGJTfoW/2OWUgI2EBF+ZwEeRDis0qa2R UBH9JJamCAkr/70vGoEbCwMt5x3zbl1lA18XMGjjBgTCO7SYda4sJhnMKxob9tctVfE0 M/IkpB7cIPBjaAYDMf63yZqOZx7IhiNcWrMiscAB/oob4bbeG20R0mKCxnYJE19SeFFZ 8aM8nigN5aRtETL1CQg5s6Bx4EOJm711p199vlin1a72hJqa1RAmO9/5E5ieLN2uQOQf FUGg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlhrr4K8/QNiFuvf6dl6yFoTd/FE4VxBG0Z3/kbv/RWCdsy8fZmLg2tkOSU8/FYOvwZRCdQ X-Received: by 10.50.85.113 with SMTP id g17mr32163183igz.46.1432673786943; Tue, 26 May 2015 13:56:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.10.197 with HTTP; Tue, 26 May 2015 13:56:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [96.90.217.22] In-Reply-To: <475dfb44d4e54649839e6438ad748b59@airmail.cc> References: <20150525212638.GB12430@savin.petertodd.org> <20150526001034.GF21367@savin.petertodd.org> <475dfb44d4e54649839e6438ad748b59@airmail.cc> From: Mark Friedenbach Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 13:56:06 -0700 Message-ID: To: joliver@airmail.cc Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e014954e02671d80517025c5b X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Headers-End: 1YxLtq-0001gb-Cz Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Cost savings by using replace-by-fee, 30-90% X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 20:56:39 -0000 --089e014954e02671d80517025c5b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Please let's at least have some civility and decorum on this list. On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:30 PM, wrote: > You're the Chief Scientist of __ViaCoin__ a alt with 30 second blocks > and you have big banks as clients. Shit like replace-by-fee and leading > the anti-scaling mob is for your clients, not Bitcoin. Get the fuck out. > > Peter Todd - 8930511 Canada Ltd. > 1214-1423 Mississauga Valley Blvd. > Mississauga ON L5A 4A5 > Canada > > > https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=8930511 > > On 2015-05-26 00:10, Peter Todd wrote: > > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 12:03:09AM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote: > >> CPFP also solves it just fine. > > > > CPFP is a significantly more expensive way of paying fees than RBF, > > particularly for the use-case of defragmenting outputs, with cost > > savings ranging from 30% to 90% > > > > > > Case 1: CPFP vs. RBF for increasing the fee on a single tx > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Creating an spending a P2PKH output uses 34 bytes of txout, and 148 > > bytes of txin, 182 bytes total. > > > > Let's suppose I have a 1 BTC P2PKH output and I want to pay 0.1 BTC to > > Alice. This results in a 1in/2out transaction t1 that's 226 bytes in > > size. > > I forget to click on the "priority fee" option, so it goes out with the > > minimum fee of 2.26uBTC. Whoops! I use CPFP to spend that output, > > creating a new transaction t2 that's 192 bytes in size. I want to pay > > 1mBTC/KB for a fast confirmation, so I'm now paying 418uBTC of > > transaction fees. > > > > On the other hand, had I use RBF, my wallet would have simply > > rebroadcast t1 with the change address decreased. The rules require you > > to pay 2.26uBTC for the bandwidth consumed broadcasting it, plus the > > new > > fee level, or 218uBTC of fees in total. > > > > Cost savings: 48% > > > > > > Case 2: Paying multiple recipients in succession > > ------------------------------------------------ > > > > Suppose that after I pay Alice, I also decide to pay Bob for his hard > > work demonstrating cryptographic protocols. I need to create a new > > transaction t2 spending t1's change address. Normally t2 would be > > another 226 bytes in size, resulting in 226uBTC additional fees. > > > > With RBF on the other hand I can simply double-spend t1 with a > > transaction paying both Alice and Bob. This new transaction is 260 > > bytes > > in size. I have to pay 2.6uBTC additional fees to pay for the bandwidth > > consumed broadcasting it, resulting in an additional 36uBTC of fees. > > > > Cost savings: 84% > > > > > > Case 3: Paying multiple recipients from a 2-of-3 multisig wallet > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > The above situation gets even worse with multisig. t1 in the multisig > > case is 367 bytes; t2 another 367 bytes, costing an additional 367uBTC > > in fees. With RBF we rewrite t1 with an additional output, resulting in > > a 399 byte transaction, with just 36uBTC in additional fees. > > > > Cost savings: 90% > > > > > > Case 4: Dust defragmentation > > ---------------------------- > > > > My wallet has a two transaction outputs that it wants to combine into > > one for the purpose of UTXO defragmentation. It broadcasts transaction > > t1 with two inputs and one output, size 340 bytes, paying zero fees. > > > > Prior to the transaction confirming I find I need to spend those funds > > for a priority transaction at the 1mBTC/KB fee level. This transaction, > > t2a, has one input and two outputs, 226 bytes in size. However it needs > > to pay fees for both transactions at once, resulting in a combined > > total > > fee of 556uBTC. If this situation happens frequently, defragmenting > > UTXOs is likely to cost more in additional fees than it saves. > > > > With RBF I'd simply doublespend t1 with a 2-in-2-out transaction 374 > > bytes in size, paying 374uBTC. Even better, if one of the two inputs is > > sufficiently large to cover my costs I can doublespend t1 with a > > 1-in-2-out tx just 226 bytes in size, paying 226uBTC. > > > > Cost savings: 32% to 59%, or even infinite if defragmentation w/o RBF > > costs you more than you save > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > One dashboard for servers and applications across > > Physical-Virtual-Cloud > > Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications > > Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable > > Insights > > Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. > > http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Bitcoin-development mailing list > > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > --089e014954e02671d80517025c5b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Please let's at least have some civility and decorum o= n this list.

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:30 PM, <joliver@airmail.cc>= wrote:
You're the Chief Scientist of= __ViaCoin__ a alt with 30 second blocks
and you have big banks as clients. Shit like replace-by-fee and leading
the anti-scaling mob is for your clients, not Bitcoin. Get the fuck out.
Peter Todd - 8930511 Canada Ltd.
1214-1423 Mississauga Valley Blvd.
Mississauga ON L5A 4A5
Canada

https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/Cor= porationsCanada/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=3D8930511

On 2015-05-26 00:10, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 12:03:09AM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
>> CPFP also solves it just fine.
>
> CPFP is a significantly more expensive way of paying fees than RBF, > particularly for the use-case of defragmenting outputs, with cost
> savings ranging from 30% to 90%
>
>
> Case 1: CPFP vs. RBF for increasing the fee on a single tx
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Creating an spending a P2PKH output uses 34 bytes of txout, and 148 > bytes of txin, 182 bytes total.
>
> Let's suppose I have a 1 BTC P2PKH output and I want to pay 0.1 BT= C to
> Alice. This results in a 1in/2out transaction t1 that's 226 bytes = in
> size.
> I forget to click on the "priority fee" option, so it goes o= ut with the
> minimum fee of 2.26uBTC. Whoops! I use CPFP to spend that output,
> creating a new transaction t2 that's 192 bytes in size. I want to = pay
> 1mBTC/KB for a fast confirmation, so I'm now paying 418uBTC of
> transaction fees.
>
> On the other hand, had I use RBF, my wallet would have simply
> rebroadcast t1 with the change address decreased. The rules require yo= u
> to pay 2.26uBTC for the bandwidth consumed broadcasting it, plus the > new
> fee level, or 218uBTC of fees in total.
>
> Cost savings: 48%
>
>
> Case 2: Paying multiple recipients in succession
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Suppose that after I pay Alice, I also decide to pay Bob for his hard<= br> > work demonstrating cryptographic protocols. I need to create a new
> transaction t2 spending t1's change address. Normally t2 would be<= br> > another 226 bytes in size, resulting in 226uBTC additional fees.
>
> With RBF on the other hand I can simply double-spend t1 with a
> transaction paying both Alice and Bob. This new transaction is 260
> bytes
> in size. I have to pay 2.6uBTC additional fees to pay for the bandwidt= h
> consumed broadcasting it, resulting in an additional 36uBTC of fees. >
> Cost savings: 84%
>
>
> Case 3: Paying multiple recipients from a 2-of-3 multisig wallet
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The above situation gets even worse with multisig. t1 in the multisig<= br> > case is 367 bytes; t2 another 367 bytes, costing an additional 367uBTC=
> in fees. With RBF we rewrite t1 with an additional output, resulting i= n
> a 399 byte transaction, with just 36uBTC in additional fees.
>
> Cost savings: 90%
>
>
> Case 4: Dust defragmentation
> ----------------------------
>
> My wallet has a two transaction outputs that it wants to combine into<= br> > one for the purpose of UTXO defragmentation. It broadcasts transaction=
> t1 with two inputs and one output, size 340 bytes, paying zero fees. >
> Prior to the transaction confirming I find I need to spend those funds=
> for a priority transaction at the 1mBTC/KB fee level. This transaction= ,
> t2a, has one input and two outputs, 226 bytes in size. However it need= s
> to pay fees for both transactions at once, resulting in a combined
> total
> fee of 556uBTC. If this situation happens frequently, defragmenting > UTXOs is likely to cost more in additional fees than it saves.
>
> With RBF I'd simply doublespend t1 with a 2-in-2-out transaction 3= 74
> bytes in size, paying 374uBTC. Even better, if one of the two inputs i= s
> sufficiently large to cover my costs I can doublespend t1 with a
> 1-in-2-out tx just 226 bytes in size, paying 226uBTC.
>
> Cost savings: 32% to 59%, or even infinite if defragmentation w/o RBF<= br> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0costs you more t= han you save
>
> --------------------------------= ----------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across
> Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable
> Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y=
>
> _______________________= ________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-d= evelopment@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitco= in-development

---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment

--089e014954e02671d80517025c5b--