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
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE2ECC002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 15 Nov 2022 14:43:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAD2F80BC7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 15 Nov 2022 14:43:35 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org AAD2F80BC7
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key,
unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com
header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm1 header.b=JPEB3Wuo
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.603
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.603 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD=1.999, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001,
SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 6wHIHbM6QFIp
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 15 Nov 2022 14:43:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org F394E80B98
Received: from wnew1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wnew1-smtp.messagingengine.com
[64.147.123.26])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F394E80B98
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 15 Nov 2022 14:43:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44])
by mailnew.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 310362B067AE;
Tue, 15 Nov 2022 09:43:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163])
by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 15 Nov 2022 09:43:28 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:date:feedback-id
:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id
:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to
:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=
fm1; t=1668523407; x=1668530607; bh=9tU4Bm6Pqp0ZyzFGlj584CwX0pY6
Y2/qdPils0Xif5Y=; b=JPEB3Wuo3hhMbQHxVDFgTeUHo+zUzj9S4jbH13/mgmCN
/eMtP2v0xvzo4QoD/1EIMoRF0LkpvVa0iqvDmobGqLOi7/V7prsPzQwbN3HszEt9
Z+BhuTSvVyXBJxc6siOSY+AEzbxHh3DogilQMuvTT7Z4bRn/t4UdkKoGTxRVIL13
7GiqV1DeMtZrSlu18/U0OjEa13+fcOOm8LYENMwtdSNpidk7m4/22BeOThVAOgN2
fUBY1KTVnAEHIUTFIPIDETl1KcsWvlwdH0cy3iFq9fsCJgFIpn7z1hrJMn2ceEfp
KYQfkKbSGFg9DflM/8/1ovgP5gUgz2o/hHSr37iLGQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:j6VzY7X17_qYlCJzxN2JeRFal6uEeLjLLztk-anLMVG2bqFj9rF-rw>
<xme:j6VzYzlYvi8ajNnAcWChKZrEC4NFlF7rO_ARhBVNneZFCN3JFc5hVkyisCLuj5EUT
2lnPfPFgDWDTgvA-Gw>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:j6VzY3YeOxHjLAlm7y0WzaJNmI3th39F48Iw7G2YAi2lke86HBN36sRDqQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvgedrgeeggdeikecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf
curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu
uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjsehgtderre
dttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefrvghtvghrucfvohguugcuoehpvghtvgesphgvthgvrhhtohgu
ugdrohhrgheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepuddtteekhefghfetjeduhfejvdevjeeiue
eugfdtleefkeehveelhfejkeeugeefnecuffhomhgrihhnpehmvghmphhoohhlrdhsphgr
tggvpdhtfihithhtvghrrdgtohhmpdhophgvnhhtihhmvghsthgrmhhpshdrohhrghdpmh
hinhhinhhgphhoohhlrdhosghsvghrvhgvrhdpphgvthgvrhhtohguugdrohhrghenucev
lhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehpvghtvgesph
gvthgvrhhtohguugdrohhrgh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:j6VzY2VoNSG5YSG60jeEiC31Wodls57PLrnel8TsLUNmSIGKFl1l_Q>
<xmx:j6VzY1n15y4_FGu3o1VYZo8odKcJa_KZw_DB5xUYLs577dFYBLAJnQ>
<xmx:j6VzYzcJJDxoo4gTnBdLTVlk3VNOU3e-t05l9PpY6ynoeHdL6sGgzA>
<xmx:j6VzY7i--YUrEJGQUQ34bTVtMFLx1-dfWFPQQU8NmRUHG9tS_Hc-x-faMVg>
Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue,
15 Nov 2022 09:43:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 7D1C75F87D; Tue, 15 Nov 2022 09:43:25 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 09:43:25 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <Y3OljVGQbZ/Wj8T6@petertodd.org>
References: <Y2I3w8O5X55sD/3C@petertodd.org> <Y2qc7Ubc5xtJhxGw@petertodd.org>
<Y3MlSE7AWkBgiCyr@erisian.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="YK6gRvqxzxwfznAz"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y3MlSE7AWkBgiCyr@erisian.com.au>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Announcement: Full-RBF Miner Bounty
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 14:43:36 -0000
--YK6gRvqxzxwfznAz
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 03:36:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wro=
te:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 01:16:13PM -0500, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrot=
e:
> > FYI I've gotten a few hundred dollars worth of donations to this effort=
, and
> > have raised the reward to about 0.02 BTC, or $400 USD at current prices.
>=20
> Seems like this has been mostly claimed (0.014btc / $235, 9238sat/vb):
I'm turning it back on when (if) the mempool settles down. I've got more th=
an
enough donations to give another run at it (the majority was donated privat=
ely
FWIW). There's a risk of the mempool filling up again of course; hard to av=
oid
that.
Right now of course it's really easy to double spend with the obvious
low-fee/high-fee method as the min relay fee keeps shifting.
> https://mempool.space/tx/397dcbe4e95ec40616e3dfc4ff8ffa158d2e72020b7d11fc=
2be29d934d69138c
>=20
> The block it was claimed in seems to have been about an hour after the
> default mempool filled up:
>=20
> https://twitter.com/murchandamus/status/1592274621977477120
>=20
> That block actually seems to have included two
> alice.btc.calendar.opentimestamps.org txs, the other paying $7.88
> (309sat/vb):
>=20
> https://mempool.space/tx/ba9670109a6551458d5e1e23600c7bf2dc094894abdf59fe=
7aa020ccfead07cf
The second is because I turned down the full-rbf reward to more normal fee
levels. There's also another full-rbf double-spend from the Bob calendar, a=
long
the same lines: 7e76b351009326a574f3120164dbbe6d85e07e04a7bbdc40f0277fcb008=
d2cd2
I double-spent the txin of the high fee tx that got mined. But I mistakenly=
had
RBF enabled in that double-spend, so while it propagated initially, I belie=
ve
it was replaced when something (someone?) rebroadcast the high-fee 397dcb t=
x.
> Timeline (utc) to me looks like:
>=20
> - 13:12 - block 763148 is mined: last one that had a min fee < 1.5sat/vb
> - 13:33 - f503868c64d454c472859b793f3ee7cdc8f519c64f8b1748d8040cd8ce6dc6=
e1
> is announced and propogates widely (1.2sat/vb)
> - 18:42 - 746daab9bcc331be313818658b4a502bb4f3370a691fd90015fabcd7759e09=
44
> is announced and propogates widely (1.2sat/vb)
> - 21:52 - ba967010 tx is announced and propogates widely, since
> conflicting tx 746daab9 has been removed from default
> mempools
> - 21:53 - murch tweets about default mempool filling up
> - 22:03 - 397dcbe4 tx is announced and propogates widely, since
> conflicting tx f503868 has already been removed from default
> mempools
Is that 22:03 time for 397 from your node's logs? It was originally announc=
ed
hours earlier. From one of my full-rbf nodes:
2022-11-14T14:08:37Z [mempool] replacing tx 764867062b67fea61810c3858d5=
87da83a28290545e882935a32285028084317 with 397dcbe4e95ec40616e3dfc4ff8ffa15=
8d2e72020b7d11fc2be29d934d69138c for 0.00468 additional fees, -1 delta bytes
> - 22:35 - block 763189 is mined
> - 22:39 - block 763190 is mined
> - 23:11 - block 763191 is mined
> - 23:17 - block 763192 is mined including 397dcbe4
>=20
> miningpool.observer reports both 397dcbe4 and ba967010 as missing in the
> first three blocks, and gives similar mempool ages for those txs to what
> my logs report:
>=20
> https://miningpool.observer/template-and-block/0000000000000000000436ab=
a59d8430061e0e50592215f7f263bfb1073ccac7
> https://miningpool.observer/template-and-block/000000000000000000056004=
04792bacfd8a164d2fe9843766afb2bfbd937309
> https://miningpool.observer/template-and-block/00000000000000000004a307=
3f58c9eae40f251ea7aeaeac870daeac4b238fd1
>=20
> That presumably means those pools (AntPool twice and "unknown") are
> running with large mempools that didn't kept the earlier 1.2sat/vb txs.
To be clear, you think that AntPool and that other exchange is running with=
a
larger than normal max mempool size limit? You mean those miners *did* keep=
the
earlier 1.2sat/vb tx?
> The txs were mined by Foundry:
>=20
> https://miningpool.observer/template-and-block/00000000000000000001382a=
226aedac822de80309cca2bf1253b35d4f8144f5
>=20
> This seems to be pretty good evidence that we currently don't have any
> significant hashrate mining with fullrbf policies (<0.5% if there was a
> high fee replacement available prior to every block having been mined),
> despite the bounty having been collected.
Oh, we can put much lower bounds on that. I've been running OTS calendars w=
ith
full-rbf replacements for a few months without clear evidence of a full-rbf
replacement. While there was good reason to think some miners were mining
full-rbf before a few years back, they probably didn't bother to reapply th=
eir
patches each upgrade. `mempoolfullrbf=3D1` is much simpler to use.
--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
--YK6gRvqxzxwfznAz
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=5pjI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--YK6gRvqxzxwfznAz--
|
