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 B40ECC0051 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 16:36:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D66588187 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 16:36:44 +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 7v6bCK1y5jva for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 16:36:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lj1-f181.google.com (mail-lj1-f181.google.com [209.85.208.181]) by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 928398817F for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 16:36:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-f181.google.com with SMTP id y2so2548066ljc.1 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 09:36:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shesek.info; s=shesek; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=QEOQ3uWw3CoFyw2oJbMrhnTxGuQ9JtDUGuGslN2pJ/Y=; b=MMUPWRFdBr7QASOU7Q6iHWo9GVZcrQ5dsNJqV46uYZLGFDPWHsgjSk86gqf5E0fOOH G3olVQ5KQmwdnvXejXCFIfRzSKfIPv4sINh02V3VkD+LghqQrs9nzDjNnhaJKN9gLxgU erEpUASfFLpz/O1blmYu0ltozT+iM4EjuZ0jw= 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=QEOQ3uWw3CoFyw2oJbMrhnTxGuQ9JtDUGuGslN2pJ/Y=; b=DudbI9PgoPVctbqKgBgX4YFAd8/0ycYjERiNRyiRPft9F14Ku7Z4ijWWZv9kz6AjO7 7hnUfrkKhlOHz5gZW4G8iuwuaXLDsbidBOMj7buqad18UrinvSGKSa7bVtGFKwg02OHM 95xHcEHOSdd5cSfoe5QWgrddq088BQYPCgQWJys4wlvZHEy2CIpT/fDYGpDaHaXzwAR8 nXrljPRfnK/hHVvaPQlJhw1/U/08mdZ6iCPZtuSFu8kDV3DsXAoYGMyn2aLquzy70DOh F/S/zsKXj9WWynW6IwA7zxLpAYkX5XtE8hNgQ5KTsDxhuZC/1dbX9/y3kKDk6Dhg55bL 6vHg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531k9yVnSUhIblC/pAUaM3odR/XI+HDJ56QZPdpfBtiUUN3KLlp4 f3d57seEzQoXA9zajULAxiVDiCZD8BhgD3WRS7eOKQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxdoDELLv605idQMzrWKq886pDOMS8KoOJdVjwpzt49u3c1emkKY7wDZ/Cx7LkvTaVq7gOWUdL59pIxhgcquos= X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:294:: with SMTP id b20mr1820464ljo.4.1598027801470; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 09:36:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Nadav Ivgi Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 19:36:30 +0300 Message-ID: To: DKBryant@gmail.com, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000072bb2d05ad65d7d4" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 16:43:00 +0000 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 16:36:44 -0000 --00000000000072bb2d05ad65d7d4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Having large portions of the network using a different minrelayfee could make it easier to reliably get different parts of the network to accept different conflicting transactions into their mempools, which could potentially be used to double-spend unconfirmed non-rbf transactions with more ease. Node operators that accept unconfirmed payments with a minrelayfee that's higher than what other nodes/miners are typically accepting would be at risk. Relying on unconfirmed transactions is of course discouraged so I'm not sure how much weight this should be given if at all, but I thought it was at least worth bringing up. Nadav On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 11:00 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 > --00000000000072bb2d05ad65d7d4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Having large portions of the network using a differen= t minrelayfee could make it easier to reliably get different parts of the n= etwork to accept different conflicting transactions into their mempools, wh= ich could potentially be used to double-spend unconfirmed non-rbf transacti= ons with more ease. Node operators that accept unconfirmed payments with a = minrelayfee that's higher than what other nodes/miners are typically ac= cepting would be at risk.

Relying on unconfirm= ed transactions is of course discouraged so I'm not sure how much weigh= t this should be given if at all, but I thought it was at least worth bring= ing up.

Nadav


On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at= 11:00 AM Dan Bryant via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.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
--00000000000072bb2d05ad65d7d4--