From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VZRgz-0004ND-Ns for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 20:39:41 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.212.177 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.177; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f177.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com ([209.85.212.177]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VZRgy-0001wE-Ne for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 20:39:41 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f177.google.com with SMTP id h11so131801wiv.16 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:39:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.211.111 with SMTP id nb15mr3695954wic.55.1382647174516; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:39:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.156.163 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:39:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20131024145447.GA19949@savin> References: <20131024143043.GA12658@savin> <20131024144358.GA17142@savin> <20131024145447.GA19949@savin> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 06:39:34 +1000 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c34854afd87304e982a12d X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gavinandresen[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: petertodd.org] 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1VZRgy-0001wE-Ne Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Making fee estimation better X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 20:39:42 -0000 --001a11c34854afd87304e982a12d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:54 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > Eligius has contracts to do transaction mining, and it's currently 10% > of the hashing power. > Yes, and I asked Luke what percentage of that 10% is OOB fee payments, and the answer is "a small percentage." So: there are multiple layers of reasons why OOB fee payments will not screw up the fee estimation code: + If the transactions are not broadcast, then they have no effect on the estimates. + If the transactions are broadcast but not relayed because their priority and fee are way below current estimates then they will have very close to zero effect on the estimates. + If the OOB transaction is zero-fee, zero-priority (e.g comes from a high-tx-volume service and relies on recently spent outputs) it will have zero effect on the estimates. + If they make up less than about 40% of broadcast transactions they will have very close to zero effect on the fee estimate (because of the distribution of fees and behavior of taking a median) The only case where the estimation code is even slightly likely to get confused is estimating the priority needed to get into a block IF there are a significant number of zero-fee, low-but-not-zero-priority OOB transactions being broadcast. And since priority naturally increases over time, even if that case DOES occur the failure is very mild-- it means your free transactions might have to build up more priority than the code estimates before successfully entering a block. If that gets to be an actual problem, then implementing Pieter's idea of keeping track of memory pool transactions that are NOT getting mined would fix it. But I don't want to waste time on a theoretical problem when it is very possible miners will decide to stop accepting free transactions alltogether. And all of the above is completely orthogonal to child-pays-for-parent and/or replace-with-higher-fee. PS: I would appreciate it if you stop saying things like "Regarding the transaction fee estimate code, it's not very well thought out." -- -- Gavin Andresen --001a11c34854afd87304e982a12d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On F= ri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:54 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
Elig= ius has contracts to do transaction mining, and it's currently 10%
of the hashing power.

Yes, and I asked = Luke what percentage of that 10% is OOB fee payments, and the answer is &qu= ot;a small percentage."

So: there are multipl= e layers of reasons why OOB fee payments will not screw up the fee estimati= on code:

+ If the transactions are not broadcast, then they have= no effect on the estimates.

+ If the transactions= are broadcast but not relayed because their priority and fee are way below= current estimates then they will have very close to zero effect on the est= imates.

+ If the OOB transaction is zero-fee, zero-priority (e.= g comes from a high-tx-volume service and relies on recently spent outputs)= it will have zero effect on the estimates.

+ If they make up less than about 40% of broadcast transactions they will h= ave very close to zero effect on the fee estimate (because of the distribut= ion of fees and behavior of taking a median)

The only case where the estimation code is even slightly likely to get= confused is estimating the priority needed to get into a block IF there ar= e a significant number of zero-fee, low-but-not-zero-priority OOB transacti= ons being broadcast.

And since priority naturally increases over time, even = if that case DOES occur the failure is very mild-- it means your free trans= actions might have to build up more priority than the code estimates before= successfully entering a block. =A0If that gets to be an actual problem, th= en implementing Pieter's idea of keeping track of memory pool transacti= ons that are NOT getting mined would fix it. But I don't want to waste = time on a theoretical problem when it is very possible miners will decide t= o stop accepting free transactions alltogether.



And all of the above is c= ompletely orthogonal to child-pays-for-parent and/or replace-with-higher-fe= e.

PS: I would appreciate it if you stop saying things like "Regarding the transaction fee estimate code, it's not = very well thought out."

--
--
Gavin Andresen

--001a11c34854afd87304e982a12d--