public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Transaction Merging (bip125 relaxation)
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 02:44:53 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180124074453.GC12767@savin.petertodd.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQBMSOhDBUZ6d9cG7fHg4tRr8o+E0j3ZXhdHkxv4kTwUA@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1198 bytes --]

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:49:34PM +0000, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:19 PM, Rhavar via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > Interesting. I didn't think about this before, but it seems like bip125 is
> > rather incentive incompatible right now? If we're assuming a competitive
> > mempool, it really doesn't seem generally rational to accept a replacement
> > transaction of a lower fee rate.
> 
> BIP125 replacement requires that the fee rate increases.  The text of
> the BIP document is written in a confusing way that doesn't make this
> clear.

In fact I considered only requiring an increase in fee rate, based on the
theory that if absolute fee went down, the transaction must be smaller and thus
miners could overall earn more from the additional transactions they could fit
into their block. But to do that properly requires considering whether or not
that's actually true in the particular state the mempool as a whole happens to
be in, so I ditched that idea early on for the much simpler criteria of both a
feerate and absolute fee increase.

-- 
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2018-01-24  7:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-01-22 17:40 [bitcoin-dev] Transaction Merging (bip125 relaxation) Rhavar
2018-01-22 18:16 ` Alan Evans
2018-01-22 18:18   ` Rhavar
2018-01-22 18:50     ` Moral Agent
2018-01-22 18:59       ` Rhavar
2018-01-22 20:00 ` Peter Todd
2018-01-22 20:09   ` Rhavar
2018-01-23 16:31   ` Rhavar
2018-01-23 21:56     ` Moral Agent
2018-01-23 22:19       ` Rhavar
2018-01-23 22:49         ` Gregory Maxwell
2018-01-24  7:44           ` Peter Todd [this message]
2018-01-24 13:43             ` Alan Evans
2018-01-24 16:05               ` Rhavar
2018-01-28 16:43                 ` Sjors Provoost
2018-01-28 17:29                   ` David A. Harding
2018-01-28 17:58                     ` Rhavar
2018-01-28 18:08                     ` Moral Agent
2018-01-23 21:31   ` Gregory Maxwell
2018-01-24  7:28     ` Peter Todd
2018-01-23 23:31 Adam Ficsor

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=20180124074453.GC12767@savin.petertodd.org \
    --to=pete@petertodd.org \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=greg@xiph.org \
    /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