From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34FF9C002D for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 19:13:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C717E84722 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 19:13:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org C717E84722 Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=petertodd.org header.i=@petertodd.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm3 header.b=EtBnIE59; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm2 header.b=PqfiAVwG X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.802 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.802 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lLShZSYCyhaY for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 19:13:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 727B5845B4 Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 727B5845B4 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 19:13:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6852132000D7; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 15:13:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 23 Jun 2022 15:13:51 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=petertodd.org; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender :subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1656011630; x=1656098030; bh=Kj q07Nv4SOhv6ggCI5EAktCfyKutgZC+TAHiaT/+914=; b=EtBnIE599QfVAv0MeF przR7dU9TxAbPJS6T2EXinaGP+jwugXu6c0KgDKCGiBuollB0n/rNLChRybArQ+H /c6EpQCTntmoOkzNSixYxaC6rGJMvsgYZHPDnoYOcnKFMF7mFEpnLeaxeBSISs4X t/EBfVA2z4BoBa8rN6KRWRi1YHcV5EnlYTwe3m/WIku2RbWLvu2rGpNpqu7CBnNe K4S8KDSLtcS5oJqBeWCMyHBZZbyiU/KbckwQ6B7PcCrLSjwzwAeUMiVX/hbLUDkU gDwKsuHK+qbx0PWctKBHZLUWChfG8un0UQ8vFwBfFGQpjZ5VWD4aYmgOC0h/4FW7 HIdw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:feedback-id :feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm2; t=1656011630; x=1656098030; bh=Kjq07Nv4SOhv6ggCI5EAktCfyKut gZC+TAHiaT/+914=; b=PqfiAVwGHtleWnBKoPYMxq1PwJ+O+V2r5FYG62iirkIH 4Gvzj1gg+OdGRZUxfdveH+36OSMaCdQJCl3m90j+AOzukLUL6YF3TnvwtTS3LTo0 NCniKeV8/xJoKRh+lTZoUrQgg77T+llV2IF5RhKXuHpHqPawe6kf/Q7+9UrPp7Uu EZ6gKp/qQ2kygFBc5mT7siON0aHcH14ra9DU8Opugp2m3mtTXf2F0m2FVwZ2Vr39 LLLDoAtwBE0dNKndZDfXLHWszB+R04XRGbZAFcxMMm+0j2mtRgIgKTm7IfefSYoD HDvE+dGISgBEEcvd3GKvS6RbbXZZPcjFErQOsEWseg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrudefjedgudefhecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpeffhffvvefukfhfgggtuggjsehgtderredttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefrvght vghrucfvohguugcuoehpvghtvgesphgvthgvrhhtohguugdrohhrgheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepgfevkedtteevkeejgedufeehvdejteffffeuueeugfetveefieelgefhteei ueetnecuffhomhgrihhnpehophgvnhhtihhmvghsthgrmhhpshdrohhrghdpphgvthgvrh htohguugdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhl fhhrohhmpehushgvrhesphgvthgvrhhtohguugdrohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 15:13:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C5C9222B56; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 15:13:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 15:13:47 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: Antoine Riard Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cXOSnUuvuZ5Dhv6I" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Playing with full-rbf peers for fun and L2s security 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: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 19:13:59 -0000 --cXOSnUuvuZ5Dhv6I Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 07:45:48PM -0400, Antoine Riard wrote: > > BTW I changed one of my OTS calendars to issue fee-bumping txs without = the > > opt-in RBF flag set as an experiment. I also made sure txs would > propagate to > > the above node. As of right now, it's up to 32 replacements (once per > block), > > without any of them mined; the calendars use the strategy of starting at > the > > minimum possible fee, and bumping the fee up every time a new block > arrives > > without the tx getting mined. So that's evidence we don't have much > full-rbf > > hash power at this moment. > > > > You can see the current status at: > https://alice.btc.calendar.opentimestamps.org/ >=20 > That's interesting. I'm not sure if we can conclude of the absence of > full-rbf hash power at this moment, as it could also be a lack of full-rbf > propagation path towards such potential hash power. I think the day we see > an opt-out replacement transaction mined, it would constitute a good hint > of full-rbf hash power (assuming the tx-relay topology stays relatively > stable across the transaction issuance...) Fees are relatively low right now, so there could be 1% or so of full-rbf h= ash power and I wouldn't notice with this particular technique as the initial tx gets mined within 10-20 blocks; a few years back similar experiments were finding a few percentage points of hashing power running full-rbf. > Anyway, if/when the `fullrbf` patch lands in Bitcoin Core, including > automatic outbound connections to few `NODE_REPLACE_BY_FEE` peers, I'm > thinking of reaching out to a few mining node operators to advocate them > with the new policy setting. I'd suggest doing that right now, without waiting for the patch to get merg= ed, as it improves the politics of getting the patch merged. Miners tend to run customized bitcoind's anyway. --=20 https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org --cXOSnUuvuZ5Dhv6I Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEFcyURjhyM68BBPYTJIFAPaXwkfsFAmK0u2cACgkQJIFAPaXw kftZVQf/eestR6ixVBzFqTWEobrwwfT8S1t3ttLhAk0kiQFstfKicgsJ3vcU8RQ6 nVRt0T3KW9rz8fxNORg9We6gkMOOERSxoItl/+C8DPTrhJRdWgmzXLFddn6Knd+g +djMgzmRmwGW87xtB1vnHxoqC8sJoONPsjKmDjS/kvAjilB5pijWqltWr825/I8r bG1EyDcBBi0dz4nM16dOgbBHwVOwQCWm8ft73yBoyKAOmnzai5oh1y8cVLSHQAcv wt58C378VMROLPufzriJgXIeO8e8lS4m1tI7PEL0o5BI6UmbmScgF4/3ZEhKKjXB OLSKS8XcrcToLcCBXLrJGBuHekNGEw== =0UtU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --cXOSnUuvuZ5Dhv6I--