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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <morcos@gmail.com>) id 1Xj7mv-0000RE-KT
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:30:21 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.171 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.171; envelope-from=morcos@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f171.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f171.google.com ([209.85.223.171])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Xj7mt-0003ng-Qu
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:30:21 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id x19so768222ier.2
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 28 Oct 2014 07:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.135.146 with SMTP id r18mr3072232ioi.62.1414506614268;
Tue, 28 Oct 2014 07:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.223.146 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 07:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T35NdEkFmdVDX19gOO1p0h1M_ZDK1iXxTFNLHE9dtC3hQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPWm=eXxs=AfFhaT2EeGFsR+2r96WcaOeWL_Z59-6LixH+=4AQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T35NdEkFmdVDX19gOO1p0h1M_ZDK1iXxTFNLHE9dtC3hQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:30:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPWm=eX0MMBOPvugETxq+pyDzZ00xc90hZAJe8qgg4Shftm-9w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alex Morcos <morcos@gmail.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f966246a8e105067c7c0f
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(morcos[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Xj7mt-0003ng-Qu
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reworking the policy estimation code (fee
estimates)
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:30:21 -0000
--001a113f966246a8e105067c7c0f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Oh in just a couple of blocks, it'll give you a somewhat reasonable
estimate for asking about every confirmation count other than 1, but it
could take several hours for it to have enough data points to give you a
good estimate for getting confirmed in one block (because the prevalent
feerate is not always confirmed in 1 block >80% of the time) Essentially
what it does is just combine buckets until it has enough data points, so
after the first block it might be treating all of the txs as belonging to
the same feerate bucket, but since the answer it returns is the "median"*
fee rate for that bucket, its a reasonable answer right off the get go.
Do you think it would make sense to make that 90% number an argument to rpc
call? For instance there could be a default (I would use 80%) but then you
could specify if you required a different certainty. It wouldn't require
any code changes and might make it easier for people to build more
complicated logic on top of it.
*It can't actually track the median, but it identifies which of the smaller
actual buckets the median would have fallen into and returns the average
feerate for that median bucket.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I think Alex's approach is better; I don't think we can know how much
> better until we have a functioning fee market.
>
> We don't have a functioning fee market now, because fees are hard-coded.
> So we get "pay the hard-coded fee and you'll get confirmed in one or two or
> three blocks, depending on which miners mine the next three blocks and what
> time of day it is."
>
> git HEAD code says you need a fee of 10,0000 satoshis/kb to be pretty sure
> you'll get confirmed in the next block. That looks about right with Alex's
> real-world data (if we take "90% chance" as 'pretty sure you'll get
> confirmed'):
>
> Fee rate 100000 Avg blocks to confirm 1.09 NumBlocks:% confirmed 1: 0.901
> 2: 1.0 3: 1.0
>
> My only concern with Alex's code is that it takes much longer to get
> 'primed' -- Alex, if I started with no data about fees, how long would it
> take to be able to get enough data for a reasonable estimate of "what is
> the least I can pay and still be 90% sure I get confirmed in 20 blocks" ?
> Hours? Days? Weeks?
>
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen
>
--001a113f966246a8e105067c7c0f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Oh in just a couple of blocks, it'll give you a somewh=
at reasonable estimate for asking about every confirmation count other than=
1, but it could take several hours for it to have enough data points to gi=
ve you a good estimate for getting confirmed in one block (because the prev=
alent feerate is not always confirmed in 1 block >80% of the time) =C2=
=A0 Essentially what it does is just combine buckets until it has enough da=
ta points, so after the first block it might be treating all of the txs as =
belonging to the same feerate bucket, but since the answer it returns is th=
e "median"* fee rate for that bucket, its a reasonable answer rig=
ht off the get go.=C2=A0<div><br></div><div>Do you think it would make sens=
e to make that 90% number an argument to rpc call?=C2=A0 For instance there=
could be a default (I would use 80%) but then you could specify if you req=
uired a different certainty.=C2=A0 It wouldn't require any code changes=
and might make it easier for people to build more complicated logic on top=
of it.<br><div><br></div><div>*It can't actually track the median, but=
it identifies which of the smaller actual buckets the median would have fa=
llen into and returns the average feerate for that median bucket.</div><div=
><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div><div cl=
ass=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at =
9:59 AM, Gavin Andresen <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:gavinandres=
en@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gavinandresen@gmail.com</a>></span> wrot=
e:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-l=
eft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_e=
xtra">I think Alex's approach is better; I don't think we can know =
how much better until we have a functioning fee market.</div><div class=3D"=
gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">We don't have a funct=
ioning fee market now, because fees are hard-coded. So we get "pay the=
hard-coded fee and you'll get confirmed in one or two or three blocks,=
depending on which miners mine the next three blocks and what time of day =
it is."</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_=
extra">git HEAD code says you need a fee of 10,0000 satoshis/kb to be prett=
y sure you'll get confirmed in the next block. That looks about right w=
ith Alex's real-world data (if we take "90% chance" as 'p=
retty sure you'll get confirmed'):</div><span class=3D""><div class=
=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div style=3D"font-fa=
mily:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><font face=3D"courier new, monospace"=
>Fee rate 100000 Avg blocks to confirm 1.09 NumBlocks:% confirmed 1: 0.901 =
2: 1.0 =C2=A0 3: 1.0</font></div><div><font face=3D"courier new, monospace"=
><br></font></div></div></span><div class=3D"gmail_extra">My only concern w=
ith Alex's code is that it takes much longer to get 'primed' --=
Alex, if I started with no data about fees, how long would it take to be a=
ble to get enough data for a reasonable estimate of "what is the least=
I can pay and still be 90% sure I get confirmed in 20 blocks" ? Hours=
? Days? Weeks?<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br clear=3D"a=
ll"><div><br></div>-- <br>--<br>Gavin Andresen<br>
</font></span></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a113f966246a8e105067c7c0f--
|
