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 A05F0C96 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:03:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pg0-f41.google.com (mail-pg0-f41.google.com [74.125.83.41]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 178B01B4 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:03:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id g7so2912667pgs.0 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 04:03:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to; bh=M+H86AsoLACQYYNdzZPhFZH+gBptdaooYNe3nZJtttM=; b=Nihxw13gBrTuc4ThCD93e+KvC9rCIK24LVT1882XdiBmEzlVepMo+/fHh+Xk/sJWqg FhV793N1mZvaaZB70UyNullRSfTXYN+c8ThtdNMFou9aQFABTNyswJIKGYv9lWiLd/k5 GG4K97N7Fw7B1QyO7Yti8e6TWklNxfsjE9YlMS9APc4Ay1A6pHXMgOjNVDiYd/LuRk/t tWRsAwzVGksQqTczJDiPHrNz4YfkUQuprJ67xb5J/NjajXTnvuRnzfnvNQIaGRB2JKaj p7k/sPqeeiaAqGIm8ftVHAcloTbpgJUlOiHqo4xdP7NWJb7Nz/k5HQ2e7KN5aH8ml+qc 8Hxg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=M+H86AsoLACQYYNdzZPhFZH+gBptdaooYNe3nZJtttM=; b=RqRz3qDORJ9dGSrrlqcgMIgReF918MEJW22zIT5o7qhJEF1X+EXnAEDR++qlEXcWS4 L0BKyUKMyqlgtt0iHTi4yrHxUKkto9mWxEfr6OqViIGkuhQFLnUBbG8e/u7WnKx+c9tS C0ZjhUnjPCla33CS27eO/kJqjetiFzoyy3lQceDSAd4sFTyCQG2S+HplNUOjCpxpOgyl T6IlpAEd7CM/dpKEmTFQJbhH3Qc9o1IUWuYiVt8vKlox9hfMVwYShtl84BVtqPVT5adW 3p2gCkNatpmrORmVg0/1uNUuBqUBlFaCPdJ0K90lSOwGoHHb6T2XLx7HDN+T1zd3/6UI 6P9w== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX7Wl/qEuDGTlD3ANhggV1PGgHiDPRUkdmagr1mYhIA8sOJvXlWe C26QRGtAs8Z2LzYVZsNjHX0kmQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMbXGXbc3s0GNggZxfMZZCfJQFa3xHygrCSvn8QznKfJSJUUWhcd3TJmkW9nQEc8GWSZTG3w/Q== X-Received: by 10.98.74.148 with SMTP id c20mr6404614pfj.200.1512043412612; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 04:03:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:600:a080:16bb:b8e3:428d:2590:7530? ([2601:600:a080:16bb:b8e3:428d:2590:7530]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n129sm7462146pfn.1.2017.11.30.04.03.31 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Nov 2017 04:03:31 -0800 (PST) To: William Morriss , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Ben Kloester References: From: Eric Voskuil Message-ID: <61fa604f-29c8-c1f2-fc49-45a5e8263bfa@voskuil.org> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 04:03:30 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="TS74TNVEcUkuoLWgOjWLodiHqiGvxSRKM" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:01:45 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Idea: Marginal Pricing 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: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:03:33 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --TS74TNVEcUkuoLWgOjWLodiHqiGvxSRKM Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="WCw8OJRlaHX03xNv5DE4v1rQCddi5uQIB"; protected-headers="v1" From: Eric Voskuil To: William Morriss , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Ben Kloester Message-ID: <61fa604f-29c8-c1f2-fc49-45a5e8263bfa@voskuil.org> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Idea: Marginal Pricing References: In-Reply-To: --WCw8OJRlaHX03xNv5DE4v1rQCddi5uQIB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 11/29/2017 10:13 PM, William Morriss via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Ben Kloester > wrote: >=20 > Something similar to this has been proposed in this article by Ron= > Lavi, Or Sattath, and Aviv Zohar, and discussed in this bitcoin-dev= > thread https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017= -September/015093.html >=20 > They only discussed changing the fee structure, not removing the > block size limit, as far as I know. >=20 > "Redesigning Bitcoin's fee market" > https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.08881 >=20 > *Ben Kloester* >=20 > Thanks. Marginal pricing is equivalent to the "Monopolistic Price > Mechanism" discussed in https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.08881 > The mechanism is the same, including > the block size adjustment, but as you noted the prior discussion only > concerns the fee structure. >=20 > It looks like the prior proposal broke down because of Peter Todd's > concern with out-of-band payments > (https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-September= /015103.html). > Restated, miners can circumvent the system through out of band payments= =2E > Mark Friedenbach argues that out-of-band payments are penalized in part= > because the end-user could have just as easily bid higher instead of > paying OOB. Peter Todd argues that a miner could mine only out-of-band > transactions. Such transactions could have no on-chain fees and thus be= > disregarded by other miners. >=20 > I believe this OOB scenario is imaginary. Either it would be more > profitable for a miner to mine fairly, or cheaper for the end-user to > pay the fee in-band.=20 > Consider MINFEE to the the effective fee paid for > the block mined by the OOB-incentivized miner. Consider MARKFEE to the > the market fee collected by non-OOB-incentivized miners. Call the OOB > effective tx fee OOB. Then, > For a user to prefer OOB: MINFEE+OOB For a miner to prefer OOB: MINFEE+OOB>MARKFEE > It is impossible for both scenarios to be true. As previously argued by= > Mark Friedenbach, the system disincentivizes OOB tx fees. Bitcoin is neutral on how miners are paid. The benefit of on-chain fee payment is that a fee can be paid with no communication between the miner and the merchant, preserving anonymity. It also serves as a convenience that anonymous fees are published, as it provides a basis for anonymous fee estimation. There is no centralization pressure that arises from side fees. https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/wiki/Side-Fee-Fallacy > I don't think there is any more centralization pressure with marginal > fees than before. What prevents miners from colluding to move tx fees > OOB is the value of the on-band pending tx fees. The hashpower of > individual miners is not impressive compared to the entire network, so > individual miners could not offer a service to speed up confirmation > that would be superior to simply doing a RBP. OOB fees are perhaps a > symptom of the current setup, wherein there is no penalty for > arbitrarily favoring individual transactions with lower fees. --WCw8OJRlaHX03xNv5DE4v1rQCddi5uQIB-- --TS74TNVEcUkuoLWgOjWLodiHqiGvxSRKM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJaH/OSAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOR0sH/iOianu1Pz+BFrkYOZRNxE/e FmYVKZnhwgI4WgGrfxeH0/Qb807NwMqgUmNkl1CFvNuNoJ+cj7UAdyMnh5rS6rVI mPNR42q69QKpaqY2EJDOrzDYFP3KJ7kPc2Z6l860Eb77aLnHRUh4ZlygCZYSL9fX fJd/hhHQAfYEOihmhjwLWDSRWsisFX6nm4QKxzZ4ku5T03nFKKNPlImjoEGLiuSj ddnjIyzrzlQX9mgiVidv4uP4m9ViSuJgwIcadhjncj0EfAVOWt7DksTV94C6QGiU PtD+NmPHLEPGEPdnK4rD9yuYlTExu6SgQjqUiOWkKUuwRkTAWXH6WUAndkUB0us= =dpRS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --TS74TNVEcUkuoLWgOjWLodiHqiGvxSRKM--