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
126
|
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 D0EB5A7C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 29 Sep 2017 02:02:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail148102.authsmtp.net (outmail148102.authsmtp.net
[62.13.148.102])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F92E3F2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 29 Sep 2017 02:02:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c245.authsmtp.com (mail-c245.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.245])
by punt20.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id v8T22U4S022829;
Fri, 29 Sep 2017 03:02:30 +0100 (BST)
Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com
[52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id v8T22SSu086133
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
Fri, 29 Sep 2017 03:02:29 +0100 (BST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 02826400FD;
Fri, 29 Sep 2017 02:02:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 3D662205E4; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 22:02:27 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 22:02:27 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20170929020227.GA12192@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <359FFE85-86AF-4FBD-9491-3528382E5002@friedenbach.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="lrZ03NoBR/3+SXJZ"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <359FFE85-86AF-4FBD-9491-3528382E5002@friedenbach.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Server-Quench: 3fa2bf04-a4ba-11e7-801f-9cb654bb2504
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdAsUC1AEAgsB AmEbW1deUF97W2o7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq
T0pMXVMcUg0MAx5i ZVseWh9zdAYIfnx5 ZwhhCCFZDhJ6cVss
RhwFCGwHMGB9YGAe Bl1RJFFSdQcYLB1A alQxNiYHcQ5VPz4z
GA41ejw8IwAXEilf Sx0EJ1YfCUgGEyV0 CVgDGz4iG1EEWSh2
NBUoJxYSEUtZN0wo MlY9Qjp/
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1039:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Rebatable fees & incentive-safe fee markets
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 02:02:34 -0000
--lrZ03NoBR/3+SXJZ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 06:06:29PM -0700, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev =
wrote:
> Unlike other proposed fixes to the fee model, this is not trivially
> broken by paying the miner out of band. If you pay out of band fee
> instead of regular fee, then your transaction cannot be included with
> other regular fee paying transactions without the miner giving up all
> regular fee income. Any transaction paying less fee in-band than the
> otherwise minimum fee rate needs to also provide ~1Mvbyte * fee rate
> difference fee to make up for that lost income. So out of band fee is
> only realistically considered when it pays on top of a regular feerate
> paying transaction that would have been included in the block anyway.
> And what would be the point of that?
This proposed fix is itself broken, because the miner can easily include *o=
nly*
transactions paying out-of-band, at which point the fee can be anything.
Equally, miners can provide fee *rebates*, forcing up prices for everyone e=
lse
while still allowing them to make deals.
Also, remember that you can pay fees via anyone-can-spend outputs, as miners
have full ability to control what transactions end up spending those output=
s.
The fact these countermeasures are all likely to be implemented - all of wh=
ich
harm the overall ecosystem by reducing visibility of fees and making it har=
der
to compete with centralized miners - makes me very dubious about that propo=
sal.
--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
--lrZ03NoBR/3+SXJZ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZzamuAAoJECSBQD2l8JH7jJMH/1U4ygFWC+G2t+qbRzKivJH/
C8O8/AqkC8HBW4DERGLpC+RXjhJ62Mdxo5D1bOz56gcZbhmfGEywGJWdZWdP4aab
wtAGLQTHkWxPUZYFluLeGSr0nNNCY+sHHt4v9jLFu/YGdbfSYcMH7r5Dx+VdC2rn
RbLipRR7qOeKeCRt4McQeZy6JFghb9aHH1UFodyHnZc7tTwtYTkI2UAYg+eZh2+s
ys76JDq3dGq9AJ9fOFyYF+nKmQtkdSIxrN7F92qsn7b7wcTpD8wmrKGAODj16jQp
pwgrMtDwDpi0csGkKbdm+sb5ko9jh1UrZ92UmG0r17i1vliQPbjUCv5xXTPp48M=
=Ql4z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--lrZ03NoBR/3+SXJZ--
|
