public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "David A. Harding" <dave@dtrt.org>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Regarding setting a lower minrelaytxfee
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 17:38:19 -1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f889c7fc9db56ed448237c8a4091abaa@dtrt.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yt/h2Jv3m8ZsfZ8v@petertodd.org>

On 2022-07-26 02:45, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 01:56:05PM +0530, Aaradhya Chauhan via 
> bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> [...] in its early days, 1 sat/vB was a good dust protection
>> measure. But now, I think it's a bit high [...] I think it can be done 
>> easily [...]
> 
> [...] lowering the dust limit now is a good way to ensure
> the entire ecosystem is ready to deal with those conditions.

I don't have anything new to add to the conversation at this time, but I 
did want to suggest a clarification and summarize some previous 
discussion that might be useful.

I think the phrasing by Aaradhya Chauhan and Peter Todd above are 
conflating the minimum output amount policy ("dust limit") with the 
minimum transaction relay feerate policy ("min tx relay fee").  Any 
transaction with an output amount below a node's configured dust limit 
(a few hundred sat by default) will not be relayed by that node no 
matter how high of a feerate it pays.  Any transaction with feerate 
below a nodes's minimum relay feerate (1 sat/vbyte by default) will not 
be relayed by that node even if the node has unused space in its mempool 
and peers that use BIP133 feefilters to advertise that they would accept 
low feerates.

Removing the dust limit was discussed extensively a year ago[1] with 
additional follow-up discussion about eight months ago.[2]

Lowering the minimum relay feerate was seriously proposed in a patch to 
Bitcoin Core four years ago[3] with additional related PRs being opened 
to ease the change.  Not all of the related PRs have been merged yet, 
and the original PR was closed.  I can't easily find some of the 
discussions I remember related to that change, but IIRC part of the 
challenge was that lower minimum relay fees reduce the cost of a variety 
of DoS attacks which could impact BIP152 compact blocks and erlay 
efficiency, could worsen transaction pinning, may increase IBD time due 
to more block chain data, and have other adverse effects.  Additionally, 
we've found in the past that some people who build systems that take 
advantage of low feerates become upset when feerates rise, sometimes 
creating problems even for people who prepared for eventual feerate 
rises.

Compared to the complexity of lowering the minimum feerate, the 
challenges of preventing denial/degregation-of-service attacks, and 
dealing with a fragmented userbase, the economic benefit of reducing the 
feerates for the bottom of the mempool seems small---if we lower min 
feerates to 1/10th their current values and that results in the 
equivalent of an extra 10 blocks of transactions getting mined a day, 
then users save a total of 0.09 BTC (~$1,800 USD) per day and miners 
earn an extra 0.01 BTC ($200 USD) per day (assuming all other things 
remain equal).[4]

-Dave

[1] 
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-August/019307.html
[2] 
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-December/019635.html
[3] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13922
[4] The current min relay fee is 1 sat/vbyte.  There are ~1 million 
vbytes in a block that can be allocated to regular transactions.  Ten 
blocks at the current min relay fee would pay (10 * 1e6 / 1e8 = 0.1 BTC) 
in fees.  Ten blocks at 1/10 sat/vbyte would thus pay 0.01 BTC in fees, 
which is $200 USD @ $20k/BTC.  Thus users would save (0.1 - 0.01 = 0.09 
BTC = $1,800 USD @ $20k/BTC).


  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-07-29  3:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-07-26  8:26 [bitcoin-dev] Regarding setting a lower minrelaytxfee Aaradhya Chauhan
2022-07-26 12:19 ` alicexbt
2022-07-26 14:27   ` Peter Todd
2022-07-26 19:14     ` alicexbt
2022-07-26 12:45 ` Peter Todd
2022-07-27  4:10   ` vjudeu
2022-07-27 11:50     ` Peter Todd
2022-07-27 12:18       ` vjudeu
2022-07-29  3:38   ` David A. Harding [this message]
2022-07-29 18:59     ` Aaradhya Chauhan
2022-07-30  7:55     ` Aaradhya Chauhan
2022-07-30 17:24       ` alicexbt
2022-08-01 10:30         ` Peter Todd
2022-08-01 13:19           ` aliashraf.btc At protonmail
2022-08-01 13:37             ` Peter Todd
2022-08-03 15:40               ` Aaradhya Chauhan
2022-08-03 17:07                 ` vjudeu
2022-08-03 18:22                   ` Aaradhya Chauhan
2022-08-04  1:21                     ` Billy Tetrud
2022-07-30 10:20     ` Peter Todd

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=f889c7fc9db56ed448237c8a4091abaa@dtrt.org \
    --to=dave@dtrt.org \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=pete@petertodd.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox