MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87zi0tisft.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
References: <87po25lmzs.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<201805100227.42217.luke@dashjr.org>
	<87vabnq9ui.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<CADZtCShwOV+GuJ5__GMi9hd2_X=BztASPBihDXakU3Mjb39wcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<87zi0tisft.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
From: "Russell O'Connor" <roconnor@blockstream.io>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 10:20:39 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMZUoK=ihVJ_x4LY0N6xVgoqqnvLOurtAQHuW1H2Jd_Z1vo61g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c8fde6056cb80276"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making OP_TRUE standard?
Precedence: list

--000000000000c8fde6056cb80276
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

In the thread "Revisting BIP 125 RBF policy" @
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-February/015717.html
and
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-March/015797.html
I propose replacing rule 3 with a rule that instead demands that the
replacement package fee rate exceeds the package fee rate of the original
transactions, and that there is an absolute fee bump of the particular
transaction being replaced that covers the min-fee rate times the size of
the mempool churn's data size.

Perhaps this would address your issue too Rusty.

On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 11:44 PM, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Jim Posen <jim.posen@gmail.com> writes:
> > I believe OP_CSV with a relative locktime of 0 could be used to enforce
> RBF
> > on the spending tx?
>
> Marco points out that if the parent is RBF, this child inherits it, so
> we're actually good here.
>
> However, Matt Corallo points out that you can block RBF will a
> large-but-lowball tx, as BIP 125 points out:
>
>    will be replaced by a new transaction...:
>
>    3. The replacement transaction pays an absolute fee of at least the sum
>       paid by the original transactions.
>
> I understand implementing a single mempool requires these kind of
> up-front decisions on which tx is "better", but I wonder about the
> consequences of dropping this heuristic?  Peter?
>
> Thanks!
> Rusty.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--000000000000c8fde6056cb80276
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra">In the thread &quot;Revisting B=
IP 125 RBF policy&quot; @ <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipe=
rmail/bitcoin-dev/2018-February/015717.html">https://lists.linuxfoundation.=
org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-February/015717.html</a> and <a href=3D"http=
s://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-March/015797.html"=
>https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-March/015797.=
html</a> I propose replacing rule 3 with a rule that instead demands that t=
he replacement package fee rate exceeds the package fee rate of the origina=
l transactions, and that there is an absolute fee bump of the particular tr=
ansaction being replaced that covers the min-fee rate times the size of the=
 mempool churn&#39;s data size.<br><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Per=
haps this would address your issue too Rusty.<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_=
extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 11:44 PM, Rus=
ty Russell via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-=
dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfou=
ndation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" styl=
e=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);paddin=
g-left:1ex"><span class=3D"gmail-">Jim Posen &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jim.pose=
n@gmail.com">jim.posen@gmail.com</a>&gt; writes:<br>
&gt; I believe OP_CSV with a relative locktime of 0 could be used to enforc=
e RBF<br>
&gt; on the spending tx?<br>
<br>
</span>Marco points out that if the parent is RBF, this child inherits it, =
so<br>
we&#39;re actually good here.<br>
<br>
However, Matt Corallo points out that you can block RBF will a<br>
large-but-lowball tx, as BIP 125 points out:<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0will be replaced by a new transaction...:<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A03. The replacement transaction pays an absolute fee of at leas=
t the sum<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 paid by the original transactions.<br>
<br>
I understand implementing a single mempool requires these kind of<br>
up-front decisions on which tx is &quot;better&quot;, but I wonder about th=
e<br>
consequences of dropping this heuristic?=C2=A0 Peter?<br>
<br>
Thanks!<br>
<span class=3D"gmail-HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888">Rusty.<br>
</font></span><div class=3D"gmail-HOEnZb"><div class=3D"gmail-h5">_________=
_____________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>

--000000000000c8fde6056cb80276--