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
|
Return-Path: <aliashraf.btc@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F65EC002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 1 Aug 2022 13:19:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C8E260B54
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 1 Aug 2022 13:19:14 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 4C8E260B54
Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org;
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com
header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=protonmail3 header.b=Mu8K83V1
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.102
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id PqjQ0_uI-H0j
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 1 Aug 2022 13:19:13 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 2E99B60B53
Received: from mail-4027.protonmail.ch (mail-4027.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.27])
by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E99B60B53
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 1 Aug 2022 13:19:13 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2022 13:19:05 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail3; t=1659359949; x=1659619149;
bh=wJJh1R8oFvMtvnb+zh3tPKA1jS4cG8xoqw0u7ar96T0=;
h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:
Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:
Message-ID;
b=Mu8K83V1/OSqn0sJPxIY4/B2OSjy4wtbGGfmdKCqXWQi6yKnkGFrsNgPBlP6Kb0Tg
QftcJX6pFS0aeRHtB/Tq45ng8Tn7yNFoRJoZbf7E1t1AwC95Q16+QifbAOTMmnaUJG
f0x4JINZqLH+Rw5DRLObnIAoB+6Szc+46AhyoILos8UYS2A22JQrH9BM9lA1EBaDPX
zvE9Pt14ZKApWBbeeiVMBs4jH226rNPSUi8PP2ae0oCWUNYue7CAZBBQo20JpM4U6Z
8l98F+XiPox4ZAkd9ojcDpf4VmcZL+pHL8OYHb2mpDXwgYdJN8I0rYbWwABJwwlSfm
SCmhjfGl2HVdA==
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: "aliashraf.btc At protonmail" <aliashraf.btc@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: "aliashraf.btc At protonmail" <aliashraf.btc@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <bKNhJ_ASFgsOslPnOxW-ps5h2OUbHbVQfOelaLPey8lxezLEuevkua1WpAtVRNPRmCtj0fRAeOSe5OHWYOSafczcBuGzhRDqbVjGctAUdBI=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <YuerLzSvdJ8ZcqrR@petertodd.org>
References: <CAGHFe1BXdTkPZn4r_KTxYoz0sqcMsV830dm5JTTFURxDezBnDQ@mail.gmail.com>
<Yt/h2Jv3m8ZsfZ8v@petertodd.org> <f889c7fc9db56ed448237c8a4091abaa@dtrt.org>
<CAGHFe1C-u7DbTtg0dz+p8Moh=FbFN5dKZow5HgtMpxcVyS2ZdA@mail.gmail.com>
<JMG4yhnQ2xL1Pq51Jnyk37c6-Ip8zHuCjmPWc6AYJ0LxlhO7enV9xdr4YGkGbn_J-ecpueZsB-mIjowyVDyMINme1bXJk4BYYP7lBxR4Kfg=@protonmail.com>
<YuerLzSvdJ8ZcqrR@petertodd.org>
Feedback-ID: 52379920:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 01 Aug 2022 13:23:03 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Regarding setting a lower minrelaytxfee
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: Mon, 01 Aug 2022 13:19:14 -0000
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 05:24:35PM +0000, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> like a hashcash-based alternative broadcast scheme.
Hi Peter,
I've been mulling the idea of attaching work to low fee txns, both as a com=
pensation (e.g., in a sidechain, or an alt), and/or as a spam proof. Unfort=
unately, both suffer from ASICs:
For spam proof case, the adversary can easily buy a used/obsolete device to=
produce lots of spam txns very cheaply, unless you put the bar very high, =
making it almost impossible for average users to even try.
The compensation scenario is pretty off-topic, still, interesting enough fo=
r 1 min read:
Wallets commit to the latest blockchain state in the transaction AND attach=
work.
It is considered contribution to the security (illegitimate chains can't in=
clude the txn), hence isrewarded by fee discount/exemption depending on the=
offset of the state they've committed to (the closer, the better) and the =
amount of work attached.
For this to work, block difficulty is calculated inclusive with the work em=
bedded in the txns, it contains. Sophisticated and consequential, yet not i=
nfeasible per se.
Unfortunately, this scheme is hard to balance with ASICs in the scene too, =
for instance, you can't subsidize wallets for their work like with a leverg=
e, because miners can easily do it locally, seizing the subsidies for thems=
elves, long story, not relevant just ignore it.
Cheers, Ali
------- Original Message -------
On Monday, August 1st, 2022 at 3:00 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin=
-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 05:24:35PM +0000, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> > However, I think developers should not make any changes in the default =
minimum fee rate required for relay. If there are incentives for users and =
miners to change it, they should use non-default value. In case, miners wan=
t to experiment with lower fee rate and see if this increases revenue they =
could try using it on odd dates (even dates remain default) for a month. We=
all could analyze how this worked for different mining pools and non-defau=
lt value (lower or higher) could become normal in the future.
>
>
> Without a way for lower-fee-rate transactions to get to those miners,
> experiments like that are pointless.
>
> If you want to propose things like this, propose a way to get non-standar=
d txs
> to miners, like a hashcash-based alternative broadcast scheme.
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
