From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FC50415 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 00:55:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-40135.protonmail.ch (mail-40135.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.135]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7D3A623 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 00:55:23 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 00:55:18 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=default; t=1554684921; bh=v/1T2wqz9dZVQ5ErUUJrrV+5mWn8S+FlKaS3Hw1/uKY=; h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Feedback-ID: From; b=xGMBKnrWdWSE0PNW6+a3V8tjYVdmOrfsLrFvMr6o/AWJDIq9GM70zQMcqZvTHWPmV fs3P9beFv+hsmaV/82itBsXP1oq+NqUHfS7mYR1gYrryVAEdtEimK+jz1h2YHGD9yc 84XJLFKowR+8DRSEoUonZeKiI6QD7U/bWl4t8twQ= To: simondev1 , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Feedback-ID: el4j0RWPRERue64lIQeq9Y2FP-mdB86tFqjmrJyEPR9VAtMovPEo9tvgA0CrTsSHJeeyPXqnoAu6DN-R04uJUg==:Ext:ProtonMail MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 01:50:47 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] new BIP: Self balancing between excessively low/high fees and block size X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 00:55:24 -0000 Good morning simondev1, It seems the algorithm would greatly increase validation time. In particular, if the current limit is removed (as in hardforked proposal) = then a 1Tb block can be used to attack the network, since sorting would req= uire looking through the entire block. Thus, validation time would still limit the practical block sizes that can = be deployed with this. Regards, ZmnSCPxj Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original Me= ssage =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 On Sunday, April 7, 2019 4:50 PM, simondev1 via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Dear bitcoin developers, > =C2=A0 > New BIP: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/774 > =C2=A0 > =3D=3DAbstract=3D=3D > Logarithm of transaction fee limits block size. > =C2=A0 > =3D=3DMotivation=3D=3D > Keep block space small. > Waste less with spam transactions. > Auto balance Fees: Increase very low fees, Descrease very high fees. > Allow larger size when sender pays a lot. > Allow wallets to calculate/display how much average free block space ther= e is for each fee price. > Allow senders to have more control about how the fee/priority of their tr= ansaction will behave, especially in the case of increased adoption in the = future. > =C2=A0 > =3D=3DSpecification=3D=3D > Every transaction has to fit into the following block space: > Input variable 'FeeInSatoshiPerByte': Must be positive or 0 > type: double > unit: Satishi per byte > Output: > type: uint > unit: bytes > Formula: > floor( log10( 1.1 + FeeInSatoshiPerByte ) * 1024 * 1024 ) > =C2=A0 > =3D=3DImplementation=3D=3D > Sort transactions by FeeInSatoshiPerByte (lowest first) > For each transaction starting from lowest FeeInSatoshiPerByte: Sum up the= bytes of space used so far. Check if summed up bytes of space used so far = is smaller or equal than the formula result. > If this is valid for each transaction then the blocksize is valid. > =C2=A0 > =3D=3DBackward compatibility=3D=3D > Soft fork: If applied AND old hardcoded block size limit is kept. > Hard fork: If applied AND old hardcoded block size limit is removed. > > Regards, simondev1 >