From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA802B01 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 02:10:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outmail148109.authsmtp.co.uk (outmail148109.authsmtp.co.uk [62.13.148.109]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40B4BD3 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 02:10:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-c245.authsmtp.com (mail-c245.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.245]) by punt22.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id v8T2AaPe090770; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 03:10:36 +0100 (BST) Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com [52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id v8T2AYeU008278 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 29 Sep 2017 03:10:35 +0100 (BST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 13B5F400FD; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 02:10:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5FE1F205E4; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 22:10:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 22:10:33 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: Matt Corallo , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Message-ID: <20170929021033.GA12303@savin.petertodd.org> References: <359FFE85-86AF-4FBD-9491-3528382E5002@friedenbach.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Server-Quench: 615fe05c-a4bb-11e7-801f-9cb654bb2504 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aQdMdAsUC1AEAgsB AmEbW1deUV17WmY7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq T0pMXVMcUg0MA21o U3seUhFwcA0IeX5w YUIsWHFeChF6cBVg E0oGR3AHZDJndWgf URZFflAGdgZOLE1H b1B7GhFYa3VsNCMk FAgyOXU9MCtqYB5Y SAgRJFgWTA4FEzMn D15KHDMkEEsZRjs+ agcvJFNUEkscekA7 K1gsRUlw X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1039:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 02:10:40 -0000 --EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 01:53:55AM +0000, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrot= e: > I'm somewhat curious what the authors envisioned the real-world implicati= ons of this model to be. While blindly asking users to enter what they're w= illing to pay always works in theory, I'd imagine in such a world the fee s= election UX would be similar to what it is today - users are provided a lis= t of options with feerates and expected confirmation times from which to se= lect. Indeed, in a world where users pay a lower fee if they paid more than= necessary fee estimation could be more willing to overshoot and the UX aro= und RBF and CPFP could be simplified greatly, but I'm not actually convince= d that it would result in higher overall mining revenue. Note too that the fee users are willing to pay often changes over time. My OpenTimestamps service is a perfect example: getting a timestamp confirm= ed within 10 minutes of the previous one has little value to me, but if the previous completed timestamp was 24 hours ago I'm willing to pay significan= tly more money because the time delay is getting significant enough to affect t= he trustworthyness of the entire service. So the fee selection mechanism is nothing more than a RBF-using loop that bumps the fee every time a block ge= ts mined w/o confirming my latest transaction. This kind of time sensitivity is probably true of a majority of Bitcoin use-cases, with the caveat that often the slope will be negative eventually: after a point in time completing the transaction has no value. --=20 https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org --EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZzauUAAoJECSBQD2l8JH7ctsIALZDHmusZ/8CZgjD5c4jbujk SWnHPUbKQN3yxGS+3cfhQA4z+0L2JcP9nghYu25iQqPpozHcTPPV6Gp/torQW1kW 1VIF5rLKLEkiSlF1dTdN1QU+7+CRAuilxF4ijzOKhvF7HO2plkFFEBNge6OY6eA8 lX5Ggz2H3/TsAFzL9kBnIvsa0DB4mpt32QxxyY5suFgCu45ys1Wcd6tWoCxlosIZ 8JJsybC4JHFcBoOobpyPdQwF4fyI3ykwbJJ7VCiqTAKxoFpRC9Ia8858NxMgwQ/f 3wlGuFF2qViQxnnEJhPNLpYmekjF7DTiZOKSSDAdymZbQoXYj6kwuICYCR/UI/g= =EaM4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU--