Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1279C002D for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 01:56:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B84A260B08 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 01:56:27 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org B84A260B08 Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=ehH0ZFD1 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t1LoNJSdJzZe for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 01:56:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 597E560A8C Received: from mail-il1-x12a.google.com (mail-il1-x12a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12a]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 597E560A8C for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 01:56:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-il1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id a9so8071322ilr.12 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2022 18:56:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc; bh=uBjwAjd7wWfnvSO0qgK5Tg9VZJMXUdzaAWUVcxg6Vc8=; b=ehH0ZFD16amA8xvCky1D1uSsBQ657+bVHzavyeKeVTVvYnW7z/kBNnJhiOsAbuS2+S PhxI9Wh3ts7jWGog+dPGsgj0MA5cZlYh59gAGPnzHC6fua90A9j/Yg6U+eBUOvSnYPG6 32tCKnNtQjUfPCHuCAr+XTmJT0Jt6WrHzljuaHli9AP+i0YZalSp1dXbkDNo8d2tzCIG iGz7yT2jj90YgvFtqsnzW0lkd7fElpXRQwP89+cPLZW/GNF8iHE75IRVwG3/mXKWUx6K Nl57rykLIzAUlyhMJAbU37wQIM09ISrCWpD69Qm7AsWI+lglrarQKgBTguaBGcbU+cLn qbyw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=uBjwAjd7wWfnvSO0qgK5Tg9VZJMXUdzaAWUVcxg6Vc8=; b=UdF0JBZXVEUZ54xoI3rLplFdai11eTjRPubVq9Sh9G4+RLFfAzH+5Vo7KeWJWt7822 5bPU41kTyOehKLvbkbyydtpNvllTNlhPAbRe0yeuyFp+zP7LyKV8PwY9UVE2wPviBGE1 X6ok2XR1ELQErPUbNzGsaC4EfRtYKK+hUUVcnExAqY/YCljjcoNkh9llON4t4XPTJ0io YuhUwVLXpggrbWDtR+6rk8Vg8QZbowR05EqvA7Mnp8gguXINbCilZpjMM6QQLto06bme QMttMtMyu+vO+CFlo585WZV7a1kuPlHxEUdmzAOkaWEL38s6YydMKXGHH7XYb4xx7cID Wu0g== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo2VZesfnLsfPmH6uy461vdvIuK8vLXq9EV9KeKQW3Q1cNey7MNl jmToaTfgmpCnGAyxDhYWa/lv3GGjsLQSQSWYiQk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR6nCC2Rz7lVbh9iH0tVmCWUSfx2cRXLz4yGt2EypBdWpp3xmlBdHEebJEdzVWmNeGA6uHKuoQrpztoBkCQsRBs= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1c42:b0:2e7:d72c:befe with SMTP id d2-20020a056e021c4200b002e7d72cbefemr1136487ilg.250.1661306185156; Tue, 23 Aug 2022 18:56:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Antoine Riard Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 02:56:14 +0100 Message-ID: To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000078b3905e6f2fda2" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 02:06:12 +0000 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: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 01:56:28 -0000 --000000000000078b3905e6f2fda2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > I'd suggest doing that right now, without waiting for the patch to get merged, > as it improves the politics of getting the patch merged. Miners tend to run > customized bitcoind's anyway. Philosophically, I think we're better off arguing code patches free from a political framework and rather reasoning from scientific or engineering principles. If a change is adopted it should be in the name of making the whole system better, making the new situation a win-win game. That said, and more pragmatically, now that the full-rbf patch is merged in Core there is the pedagogical work of explaining the fee upsides of turning on full-rbf setting to enough miners. AFAIK, we don't have public, broadcast-all communication channels between developers and mining operators to exchange on software upgrades (e.g Stratum V2). I think I'm left with the process of reaching out to miner one by one. Le jeu. 23 juin 2022 =C3=A0 20:13, Peter Todd a =C3=A9= crit : > 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 withou= t > 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/ > > > > 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 hi= nt > > 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 > hash > 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 the= m > > with the new policy setting. > > I'd suggest doing that right now, without waiting for the patch to get > merged, > as it improves the politics of getting the patch merged. Miners tend to r= un > customized bitcoind's anyway. > > -- > https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > --000000000000078b3905e6f2fda2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> I'd suggest doing that righ= t now, without waiting for the patch to get merged,
> as i= t improves the politics of getting the patch merged. Miners tend to run
= > customized bitcoind's anyway.

Philosophically, = I think we're better off arguing code patches free from a political fra= mework and rather reasoning from scientific or engineering principles. If a= change is adopted it should be in the name of making the whole system bett= er, making the new situation a win-win game.

That = said, and more pragmatically, now that the full-rbf patch is merged in Core= there is the pedagogical work of explaining the fee upsides of turning on = full-rbf setting to enough=C2=A0miners. AFAIK, we don't have public, br= oadcast-all communication channels between developers and mining operators = to exchange on software upgrades (e.g Stratum V2). I think I'm left wit= h the process of reaching out to miner one by one.=C2=A0
<= br>
L= e=C2=A0jeu. 23 juin 2022 =C3=A0=C2=A020:13, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> a =C3=A9= crit=C2=A0:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 07:45:48PM -0= 400, Antoine Riard wrote:
> > BTW I changed one of my OTS calendars to issue fee-bumping txs wi= thout the
> > opt-in RBF flag set as an experiment. I also made sure txs would<= br> > 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 star= ting at
> the
> > minimum possible fee, and bumping the fee up every time a new blo= ck
> 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/
>
> That's interesting. I'm not sure if we can conclude of the abs= ence 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 h= int
> of full-rbf hash power (assuming the tx-relay topology stays relativel= y
> 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 initi= al 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&#= 39;m
> thinking of reaching out to a few mining node operators to advocate th= em
> with the new policy setting.

I'd suggest doing that right now, without waiting for the patch to get = merged,
as it improves the politics of getting the patch merged. Miners tend to run=
customized bitcoind's anyway.

--
http= s://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
--000000000000078b3905e6f2fda2--