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 333CE3EE for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2017 08:54:59 +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 B35E6367 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2017 08:54:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f44.google.com with SMTP id h4so909892vkg.0 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2017 01:54:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rn1dQty7anRAcZNAL8DLUNu75w8lwkgB/x2H+I+U4YI=; b=mCEppdRFV457FG6kW10ePZrZrLEyGQ/pi4Dl1S6QyUP9YkRW+dMjt3EzYFjqGMwoWW GDNxJxcSYtGThW7yPDpigYj34Lnwb6c9n5hsKV+Uyi40hhQECLqsMN99wqAV2IoSqExv x8mgQIOMUzj6M87uaTCb3hHUAJKF1Egq+mYBjRFT4iP0gkHIZ3YIvYjdGYCSFYFXqJCn 0sv1xbIH6YE7pIOW1luFOyhaeO94bib9lh+vUidMWILBU/0iSGFIVpDN7wajaIRRzY1G sAHJ04IS6Cnnybq4YbiYdRKuj0yxrZ+AikoUhe95lsBtsxJWccguVwDdXO8y8u714ep/ nm9g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rn1dQty7anRAcZNAL8DLUNu75w8lwkgB/x2H+I+U4YI=; b=cajxjz5GHml0+S3RHjE4l6rL8s8nHMybAgqmlT5rZs9jVHoGLd49T8I9jcRHUbRgSu /PR1BkHpUoeoXzUT3hOLQND1MOTckp2U7lBu46UtkLS5C/EtNzuphGYPDCapsLMJlJlz P1827bufAvZStRii3DaiN5F65ZqVmE464BotLT/oxsAz8nAph+M2UI+sUVqAqSp6V72N qaqoj/G3di5Rkc1VIK/ifcYCFEQlBUWvha+tXLxwvHpRjlmh06nbRDOyurhwgCpLjoWS 6DYbbYvn1IaUETL/qgnIaxMBwpP7m9MTQOKW/RAGFFAIItZmpuqcydarhw9WntDAE4t8 ll4w== X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUjGVvDg/gfdCTSwFCuzIVFXMqEO3XJXDg6zf1Tz9RtKszsIXHcA W0mUvQYCbhdq31Teo/76q3DDgmLeV++OWTF5ce0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QC/bVDVhQ7N9ehpdLN9b8Qc61tKMrP1zNANqCGlkJYCPO282GaSLcumFxiVFD89F6AdCXPnzrwTB9OBlbBIOnA= X-Received: by 10.31.102.133 with SMTP id a127mr5338650vkc.154.1506761697864; Sat, 30 Sep 2017 01:54:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com Received: by 10.103.54.76 with HTTP; Sat, 30 Sep 2017 01:54:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <5F7A4F74-B108-4E30-A3F4-4125BBD0F819@friedenbach.org> From: Gregory Maxwell Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 08:54:57 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: oLHVN_ZLbsav71gHQY17gWhePmA Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.5 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 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: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 08:54:59 -0000 On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Gmaxwell I think what's new is that in this case, with a single tx you wo= uld > 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. I think this is not relevant: By paying the same amount you can delay the same transactions today. The difference is that your 'attack' wastes less capacity-- it can be a simple 150 weight txn rather than a collection that add up to almost 4 million weight; but it costs exactly the same. To the extent that this difference matters at all, I think it's an improvement. The only argument that I see for it not being one is that it's easier to do accidentally. But part of the purpose of this alternative market is to achieve an equilibrium other than the ultrabloating one; so yes, you're going to find outcomes where the blocks are not maximally full. I wonder how the economics would respond if there is a PI controller on the maximum size, so that 'lost space' in single blocks with bogon fee transactions could be recovered if doing so didn't change the medium timescale total. I think the paper's analysis assumes there is no limit, but that is impractical for technical reasons (e.g. making it impossible to budget communications and storage capacity for nodes...).