1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61054305
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:53:18 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail149078.authsmtp.net (outmail149078.authsmtp.net
[62.13.149.78])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEE011CB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:53:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235])
by punt17.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t5UErE4k062718;
Tue, 30 Jun 2015 15:53:14 +0100 (BST)
Received: from savin.petertodd.org (75-119-251-161.dsl.teksavvy.com
[75.119.251.161]) (authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t5UErA8F039093
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Tue, 30 Jun 2015 15:53:12 +0100 (BST)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:53:09 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Chris Pacia <ctpacia@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150630145309.GC17984@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <20150629050726.GA502@savin.petertodd.org>
<5591E10F.9000008@thinlink.com>
<20150630013736.GA11508@savin.petertodd.org>
<CALqxMTH_5rtOs=aSNiVrfsG_sqQDCnTr-8qBH3Qji+8g_dAMcQ@mail.gmail.com>
<55929E7F.8020301@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="H8ygTp4AXg6deix2"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <55929E7F.8020301@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Server-Quench: bb4d1b49-1f37-11e5-b396-002590a15da7
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdQIUEkAaAgsB AmMbWlFeVV57WGA7 bA9PbARUfEhLXhtr
VklWR1pVCwQmRRlk c1xvWm9ydAxGcX0+ bEZqWj4JDkAudBR5
S1NVQ24BeGZhPWUC AkNRcR5UcAFPdx8U a1UrBXRDAzANdhEy
HhM4ODE3eDlSNhEd aCA1fxo8XEIPVgQx XxQLFjhqF1xAaSg+
ZxArMlobDUMcNFl6 KlAhVF4FNxJ6
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 75.119.251.161/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP: Full Replace-by-Fee deployment schedule
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:53:18 -0000
--H8ygTp4AXg6deix2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 09:49:51AM -0400, Chris Pacia wrote:
>=20
>=20
> On 06/30/2015 09:12 AM, Adam Back wrote:
> > It is correct to view first-seen miner and relay policy as
> > honour-based, though it is the current default.
> >
> >
> What would be the effect of IBLT on the first seen policy? It seems that
> if a miner has to broadcast extra data with his blocks because he's
> using full RBF and everyone else is using first-seen then his blocks are
> at a disadvantage in terms of propagation. That wouldn't make first-seen
> a hard consensus rule, but rather one rational miners are likely to
> follow. Or is this effect likely to be minimal?
The disadvantage can be calculated compensated for by higher fees; if
the disadvantage is so large that the higher fees are unaffordable we're
in big trouble as the guarantees that mempools are in sync are pretty
poor. (why doublespending zeroconf txs is easy!) For instance, that'd
imply that sending two simultaneous transactions will cause profit
losses to all but the largest miners - who are unaffected - and that
upgrades that change IsStandard() will cause profit losses, among many
other problems.
Bitcoin just doesn't work if blocks aren't relayed quickly in the worst
case.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000c51793e1f2f6b9bd82dd1579b3e4207e70a0aa8fb953c80
--H8ygTp4AXg6deix2
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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==
=Tgvn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--H8ygTp4AXg6deix2--
|
