From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02E7BC0051 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 16:57:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2B8287EF8 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 16:57:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jIYIE-8DiYB8 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 16:57:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wr1-f46.google.com (mail-wr1-f46.google.com [209.85.221.46]) by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FFC687ED1 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 16:57:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr1-f46.google.com with SMTP id y3so2575297wrl.4 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 09:57:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=VDnaW6JaEIpkP3Uzo4GmXtYSVsA7vY/K1wj9xPRju7M=; b=uRA04CEosCu4LlH1I1h6CYTg0mApwroN4WHxbp4UxIDOaR3LbQDIAjiUTBosdh/GPC LUu/JJz4YcMn8KBxQ8a46ynKQRBQOgEP7joDiPMHtTmZCU2ZY1dFto8rZIF8ZtR7qrGu qkieW+kv6mkpX01gE+MMkPh7k4MFHOFuhe8yE+tKk0tjiaqaO8Ly6byo/UP8D4TqAyf3 WBZgkPhMXAs1oGkyKQAawR0l6YaFqlgF4QfgtsU0sQC+bCO5rT3ziR2rEf7OYLLW7u6C 7qwGMmGZMzAE0goFUZTBaqtJ8/mRY7lE1E3eGRIFLQ+zi3Pw6zYTF3hXAQaJsrZfFtLh VuCA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=VDnaW6JaEIpkP3Uzo4GmXtYSVsA7vY/K1wj9xPRju7M=; b=S6BAS6eVkCg3Ir06Uppbt8YNLW4bLih5VY9YeoRFfYuK++EVpVXi9YUL/V6i5NNys9 XvX2lRrV13gRtprMZr0ZT4j743flk7efB83Jd0qqZLZ06lrgrb7vOVk+Y/F0+VecyZxu LZY4Bg//YsCJsIJpCFvnfAcXIpTSIowGQmkdEvPljK8vL9Dt3TOiQccJELFAfHZ6Sb9w 3mjkTLP8NW/WVNByjU4F9OPKGx9OsfV9hFWaFdsQkE4R5Kt6k9x1vEhKltYMJ3iiE+LM H4mB+qRdQD4CgI0E4bp/C5qrJrKGkusHip12MOuj0ob9LXnJ9CKipfwpuLEufQmue4yt CCbA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532f7YUEjuQU+oz8n0jP/L5xjHnKyyd4uLmunw3j/ajzxBziSlt3 rNjBL9tBtMt9AdjImw27kdLLeMAqRs4ntkNUP/8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyPjHMWQbd9OX2zrYOUonDSXh4OOcqoHTECskLWR5mkNSZenjZo4zRonjiEp3rnPc8b6Yeq4HtVUg5s2H4JTn0= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:420b:: with SMTP id n11mr3481489wrq.11.1598029063402; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 09:57:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Greg Sanders Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 12:57:32 -0400 Message-ID: To: DKBryant@gmail.com, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000aa38d305ad662261" Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Time to lower minrelaytxfee ? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 16:57:46 -0000 --000000000000aa38d305ad662261 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" No strong opinions but: Denial of service attacks can become 5x cheaper. If you don't thoroughly test https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16499 these changes you can end up with bugs that can cause issues on p2p network. On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 4:00 AM Dan Bryant via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > It's been 5 years since minrealytxfee was lowered. At the time > bitcoin was trading for $255 and it was agreed that the fee of 5000 > sat/vkB was too high. It was lowered to 1000 sat/vkB. In regards to > how much anti-DoS protection that provided, it comes out to $0.00255 / > vkB in USD terms. To have parity with the last reduction, we would > need to reduce minrealytxfee to 22 sat/vKB, though an even more > conservative reduction to 100 or 50 sat/vKB would be welcome. > > With the growing adoption of LN, there is a need for ultra-low-fee > on-chain TXNs. Having these queue and confirm overnight, or even > waiting until the Sunday lull would still probably be welcome to many > users. The fact that the mempool is going empty at least every week > indicates that miners have not reached the floor of what they are > willing to mine. > > About 2 years ago there was a PR (#13922) to try to make a reduction > from 1000 to 200 sat/vkB. It was widely accepted but the submitter > eventually closed it in favor of PR #13990. > > If minrelaytxfee is already parameterized and configurable in > bitcoin.conf, how could it be detrimental to operation of a node to > change the default? > > References: > > * > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9e93640be6c49fa1505ba5c5df8c89210da5a6e4 > * https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13922 > * https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13990 > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --000000000000aa38d305ad662261 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
No strong opinions but:

Denial of= service attacks can become 5x cheaper.

If you don't= thoroughly=C2=A0test=C2=A0https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16499=C2=A0these = changes you can end up with bugs that can cause issues on p2p network.

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 4:00 AM Dan Bryant via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda= tion.org> wrote:
It's been 5 years since minrealytxfee was lowered.=C2=A0 At the= time
bitcoin was trading for $255 and it was agreed that the fee of 5000
sat/vkB was too high.=C2=A0 It was lowered to 1000 sat/vkB.=C2=A0 In regard= s to
how much anti-DoS protection that provided, it comes out to $0.00255 /
vkB in USD terms.=C2=A0 To have parity with the last reduction, we would need to reduce minrealytxfee to 22 sat/vKB, though an even more
conservative reduction to 100 or 50 sat/vKB would be welcome.

With the growing adoption of LN, there is a need for ultra-low-fee
on-chain TXNs.=C2=A0 Having these queue and confirm overnight, or even
waiting until the Sunday lull would still probably be welcome to many
users.=C2=A0 The fact that the mempool is going empty at least every week indicates that miners have not reached the floor of what they are
willing to mine.

About 2 years ago there was a PR (#13922) to try to make a reduction
from 1000 to 200 sat/vkB.=C2=A0 It was widely accepted but the submitter eventually closed it in favor of PR #13990.

If minrelaytxfee is already parameterized and configurable in
bitcoin.conf, how could it be detrimental to operation of a node to
change the default?

References:

* https://github.c= om/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9e93640be6c49fa1505ba5c5df8c89210da5a6e4
* https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13922
* https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13990
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--000000000000aa38d305ad662261--