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
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60645910
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 30 Sep 2017 03:56:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f44.google.com (mail-vk0-f44.google.com
[209.85.213.44])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6CF441E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 30 Sep 2017 03:56:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f44.google.com with SMTP id w23so759582vkw.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 29 Sep 2017 20:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=DRXioQnq0Whr1BEHutamoOChmpIQLt6KECo7Rq4/5oM=;
b=RbP/qJH/jOmmSL7GOrYSRYEQ6jbSdooSfmp0LMYiVALqGIdkY1OiIwk7rh2tj/pi29
mE2DNdjG1JCsaO41SzRJhYc5/wwfwHYfQ0INOIpYs6OQLcoibEL2RV+B0vfgKaFucpma
zPQnvgEKP/DaM6++5fyAsJ0aA1fYv4GPg/qzcGliwwH1lw8muS9G5eyBY+utKtDS2N4e
IDIFEbZvOMhu74weOCbiXUhGj1w+fSgETcDiGebSSON22n7B0P73P4/E1fNLpsxxSXi8
GOvPGWEqD32vX5/j+OGCR8znmUsfKvWCiFhTSy4Lv1OtO6PXPyuCZE3MgJQsehVzV5Q1
P4vA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=DRXioQnq0Whr1BEHutamoOChmpIQLt6KECo7Rq4/5oM=;
b=ENIfQsP2CKdMtmflwsmFo9cld04glIUbB0gTLSMWgo6x1YAno/8lGvzwHOAIw9QOaH
fY1+cGWa0x5IA6PSNsVrjv6rXoTWsxr6PUsRsHXL67Han0sJKtcznRwkLoRcFYHdyGjW
Nsb5cGXxjcKAqYhyHEFinU5gmjuCKBTGTZxngiCE3ylXCzdaQqgzcB+rOHCZXpwnteeA
DpdUir+Bn+Sq5DH5jPTNpw8pj0bzu9e/ETk8ar4WLKKl7wlT71SX82NKh9tU2llVQn4W
gXsVbaCFDjpajwZSeU4Zz2G1h0l9sSSfEC+r+1iAT/oNJg+g4QZPRoQBnlrmQdNYEzPp
pTdA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUimXZEMwMdjqMVvx1sMQB1hthtFNo0kAfU8sIM0D4/VYxKhv0mx
q/pNVZHXSMwg4h+nH3VRwgt55m0ureklZjxpw9tNdQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QDtHC836duAWeKdq8RWEwvXia8n50hj6ieveIcbioQQ8qMeuq0aJLZXOABL8TfrMJKQU2lRsHi044CP9zZd1T8=
X-Received: by 10.31.110.1 with SMTP id j1mr5162539vkc.156.1506743759780; Fri,
29 Sep 2017 20:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.79.199 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 20:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.31.79.199 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 20:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDqXXvNCZ7EyKuwudB5J0YDX7hNnXHPZNxTO0_JsM+yNHg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEgR2PGCZ=F85yjAbZgC6NtzhpdgBL3n4M2jowN12wJ7x-Ai1A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAEgR2PGrxDQE0k8WX4XXz9GN-RAL6JB51ST9Hdz=ba36gRCa6A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAEgR2PFjt=ihzRBhNXbHTAJz1R+3vz8o-zRZkDA3iBo39x9cTQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAEgR2PFfSjJjkTYq+DAmTzmkHPxqhn6fUDoXTzrRebz+OoUgqw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAEgR2PG5ZueHKDXbsPDEjQG7xAYBa_JAtPZo9n1V2=STC1srpA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAEgR2PGPQ1e9SmoWOS3V+N9v+OWiM4g3nPN3d9urc+DfkWEJ7A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAEgR2PEKkHH6+Sh8cQGF83-s1tpwQZgd0fiuNz_xyWu0mUPfCA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAEgR2PEyWFO1RFohVEpcb-M7aM-8xjCFvDPeJPD4zF4yTCyZ0A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAEgR2PGrf+4pQRyNC_xKVEKXimKTWveGK9q6YJeZkG0_r=8tkg@mail.gmail.com>
<5F7A4F74-B108-4E30-A3F4-4125BBD0F819@friedenbach.org>
<CABm2gDqXXvNCZ7EyKuwudB5J0YDX7hNnXHPZNxTO0_JsM+yNHg@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 05:55:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDqmOXGZ_qxyNjFYg8qTRu4Tmo7V+zYZCt0j5RekUNVkWw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark <mark@friedenbach.org>,
Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c14a38491edca055a601eb5"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.5 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=disabled
version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Daniele Pinna <daniele.pinna@gmail.com>
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: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 03:56:01 -0000
--94eb2c14a38491edca055a601eb5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Gmaxwell I think what's new is that in this case, with a single tx you
would take out all txs with fee below 1 btc. With current rules, you would
only remove enoguh txs for that one to fit, not empty the whole block and
mine only a block with that single tx.
On 30 Sep 2017 5:53 am, "Jorge Tim=C3=B3n" <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:
> I really don't see how this "outlier behaviour" can be prevented. I think
> it would be the norm even with your proposed "fix". Perhaps I'm missing
> something too.
>
> On 29 Sep 2017 5:24 pm, "Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev" <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> This is correct. Under assumptions of a continuous mempool model however
>> this should be considered the outlier behavior, other than a little bit =
of
>> empty space at the end, now and then. A maximum fee rate calculated as a
>> filter over past block rates could constrain this outlier behavior from
>> ever happening too.
>>
>> > On Sep 29, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Daniele Pinna <daniele.pinna@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Maybe I'm getting this wrong but wouldn't this scheme imply that a
>> miner is incentivized to limit the amount of transactions in a block to
>> capture the maximum fee of the ones included?
>> >
>> > As an example, mined blocks currently carry ~0.8 btc in fees right now=
.
>> If I were to submit a transaction paying 1 btc in maximal money fees, th=
en
>> the miner would be incentivized to include my transaction alone to avoid
>> that lower fee paying transactions reduce the amount of fees he can earn
>> from my transaction alone. This would mean that I could literally clog t=
he
>> network by paying 1btc every ten minutes.
>> >
>> > Am I missing something?
>> >
>> > Daniele
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
--94eb2c14a38491edca055a601eb5
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"auto">Gmaxwell I think what's new is that in this case, wit=
h a single tx you would take out all txs with fee below 1 btc. With current=
rules, you would only remove enoguh txs for that one to fit, not empty the=
whole block and mine only a block with that single tx.</div><div class=3D"=
gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 30 Sep 2017 5:53 am, "J=
orge Tim=C3=B3n" <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:<br type=3D"attributio=
n"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left=
:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto">I really don't see =
how this "outlier behaviour" can be prevented. I think it would b=
e the norm even with your proposed "fix". Perhaps I'm missing=
something too.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On 29 Sep 2017 5:24 pm, "Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev" &l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank=
">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br type=3D"attr=
ibution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;borde=
r-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">This is correct. Under assumptions =
of a continuous mempool model however this should be considered the outlier=
behavior, other than a little bit of empty space at the end, now and then.=
A maximum fee rate calculated as a filter over past block rates could cons=
train this outlier behavior from ever happening too.<br>
<br>
> On Sep 29, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Daniele Pinna <<a href=3D"mailto:danie=
le.pinna@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">daniele.pinna@gmail.com</a>> wrote=
:<br>
><br>
> Maybe I'm getting this wrong but wouldn't this scheme imply th=
at a miner is incentivized to limit the amount of transactions in a block t=
o capture the maximum fee of the ones included?<br>
><br>
> As an example, mined blocks currently carry ~0.8 btc in fees right now=
. If I were to submit a transaction paying 1 btc in maximal money fees, the=
n the miner would be incentivized to include my transaction alone to avoid =
that lower fee paying transactions reduce the amount of fees he can earn fr=
om my transaction alone. This would mean that I could literally clog the ne=
twork by paying 1btc every ten minutes.<br>
><br>
> Am I missing something?<br>
><br>
> Daniele<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat<wbr>ion.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-d<wbr>ev</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
--94eb2c14a38491edca055a601eb5--
|
