public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Jeremy Spilman <jeremy@taplink.co>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Making fee estimation better
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 18:49:38 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131025224938.GB18030@petertodd.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <op.w5h2rwhcyldrnw@laptop-air>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1372 bytes --]

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:51:22AM -0700, Jeremy Spilman wrote:
> Gavin, can you confirm the best place to  read  up on the discuss
> fee estimation changes for v0.9?
> 
> I think fee estimation at its core is about providing a data point,
> or even call it an API, which can be used however you see fit.
> 
> What parameters do I want to see in a 'fee estimation' API?
> 
>  - 30 minutes vs 24 hours processing time
>  - Confidence Levels (50%/90%)
> 
> What properties does the result have?
>   - Is it globally consistent?
> 
> Talking about fees.. I read this:
> https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/2961409 and there is so much
> there I really liked.

State-of-the-art thinking has changed a lot; that document is over a
year old and needs significant changes to update it.

> Any pointers for reading more about the leading theories on
> transaction fees? For example, how well do they correlate with
> network security? Are we getting what we are paying for? :-)

Network security is currently funded by inflation rather than
transaction fees. This is likely to remain true for at least a few more
years. FWIW the cost of that security on a per transaction basis is
about $18, see http://blockchain.info/charts/cost-per-transaction

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000009b86605cc3235f2674600d5131dd437d941b479e78588177b

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2013-10-25 22:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-10-24 14:30 [Bitcoin-development] Making fee estimation better Peter Todd
2013-10-24 14:38 ` Mike Hearn
2013-10-24 14:43   ` Peter Todd
2013-10-24 14:46     ` Mike Hearn
2013-10-24 14:54       ` Peter Todd
2013-10-24 20:39         ` Gavin Andresen
2013-10-25  7:07           ` Peter Todd
2013-10-25 12:02             ` Andreas Petersson
2013-10-25 13:29               ` Mark Friedenbach
2013-10-25 14:08                 ` Andreas Petersson
2013-10-25 16:13               ` Peter Todd
2013-10-25 19:35                 ` Jeremy Spilman
2013-10-25 22:13                   ` Peter Todd
2013-10-25  7:51           ` Jeremy Spilman
2013-10-25 22:49             ` Peter Todd [this message]
2013-10-26  0:25             ` Gavin Andresen
2013-10-26  7:28               ` Peter Todd
2013-10-28  7:17               ` John Dillon
2013-11-04 10:52                 ` [Bitcoin-development] Zeroconf-safe tx replacement (replace-for-fee) Peter Todd
2013-11-04 11:10                   ` Adam Back
2013-11-04 11:59                     ` Peter Todd
     [not found] <mailman.289181.1382717617.21953.bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
2013-10-25 16:40 ` [Bitcoin-development] Making fee estimation better Tamas Blummer

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20131025224938.GB18030@petertodd.org \
    --to=pete@petertodd.org \
    --cc=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=jeremy@taplink.co \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox