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
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FC50415
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 8 Apr 2019 00:55:24 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-40135.protonmail.ch (mail-40135.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.135])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7D3A623
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 8 Apr 2019 00:55:23 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 00:55:18 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=default; t=1554684921;
bh=v/1T2wqz9dZVQ5ErUUJrrV+5mWn8S+FlKaS3Hw1/uKY=;
h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Feedback-ID:
From;
b=xGMBKnrWdWSE0PNW6+a3V8tjYVdmOrfsLrFvMr6o/AWJDIq9GM70zQMcqZvTHWPmV
fs3P9beFv+hsmaV/82itBsXP1oq+NqUHfS7mYR1gYrryVAEdtEimK+jz1h2YHGD9yc
84XJLFKowR+8DRSEoUonZeKiI6QD7U/bWl4t8twQ=
To: simondev1 <random@gmx.ch>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <j9Yc7SPFXCH_C3wUJs5oZwwdEWQnnfcfJ_DW_DJCCH1QYCr4N9ABx3-IG9mMxKAFKHmaWE_K_XIT5hwK8aV8pGpuVYZr13sl5KQSO88vPgk=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <trinity-9a1b0170-a250-4c06-a8e1-0f281499c4da-1554627046019@3c-app-gmx-bs53>
References: <trinity-9a1b0170-a250-4c06-a8e1-0f281499c4da-1554627046019@3c-app-gmx-bs53>
Feedback-ID: el4j0RWPRERue64lIQeq9Y2FP-mdB86tFqjmrJyEPR9VAtMovPEo9tvgA0CrTsSHJeeyPXqnoAu6DN-R04uJUg==:Ext:ProtonMail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL,
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
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 01:50:47 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] new BIP: Self balancing between excessively
low/high fees and block size
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: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 00:55:24 -0000
Good morning simondev1,
It seems the algorithm would greatly increase validation time.
In particular, if the current limit is removed (as in hardforked proposal) =
then a 1Tb block can be used to attack the network, since sorting would req=
uire looking through the entire block.
Thus, validation time would still limit the practical block sizes that can =
be deployed with this.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original Me=
ssage =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90
On Sunday, April 7, 2019 4:50 PM, simondev1 via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Dear bitcoin developers,
> =C2=A0
> New BIP: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/774
> =C2=A0
> =3D=3DAbstract=3D=3D
> Logarithm of transaction fee limits block size.
> =C2=A0
> =3D=3DMotivation=3D=3D
> Keep block space small.
> Waste less with spam transactions.
> Auto balance Fees: Increase very low fees, Descrease very high fees.
> Allow larger size when sender pays a lot.
> Allow wallets to calculate/display how much average free block space ther=
e is for each fee price.
> Allow senders to have more control about how the fee/priority of their tr=
ansaction will behave, especially in the case of increased adoption in the =
future.
> =C2=A0
> =3D=3DSpecification=3D=3D
> Every transaction has to fit into the following block space:
> Input variable 'FeeInSatoshiPerByte': Must be positive or 0
> type: double
> unit: Satishi per byte
> Output:
> type: uint
> unit: bytes
> Formula:
> floor( log10( 1.1 + FeeInSatoshiPerByte ) * 1024 * 1024 )
> =C2=A0
> =3D=3DImplementation=3D=3D
> Sort transactions by FeeInSatoshiPerByte (lowest first)
> For each transaction starting from lowest FeeInSatoshiPerByte: Sum up the=
bytes of space used so far. Check if summed up bytes of space used so far =
is smaller or equal than the formula result.
> If this is valid for each transaction then the blocksize is valid.
> =C2=A0
> =3D=3DBackward compatibility=3D=3D
> Soft fork: If applied AND old hardcoded block size limit is kept.
> Hard fork: If applied AND old hardcoded block size limit is removed.
>
> Regards, simondev1
>
|
