1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
|
Return-Path: <mark@friedenbach.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AF9CAA6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 29 Sep 2017 02:45:05 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pg0-f49.google.com (mail-pg0-f49.google.com [74.125.83.49])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B709CF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 29 Sep 2017 02:45:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id d8so28409pgt.4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 19:45:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=friedenbach-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;
bh=EX6q8/AV5gh5FQ3tiHwaaK2vjgEkHwncGYbpPhQ01jE=;
b=cJJn9Dwc74W6mravlIi4foInkoHM/6ZS+AsYwUioG5fv+47QWCTO6gPGh1TJk1bG5x
sRNqWAI/qJpyED4yNsdf4WFw0vSCLvOgLhuSI5LG3DCc1wsQ60jnFA+WsbcwFWRUoJz8
bIoejHfwWaehD1wUtZdwX0WFFMZ4/rcUhFAMl3NXx++419t7XpAxKAq1cja/CeMujXts
bTCdEyYPXrJDGuy8S+QmXUQNIxpYE4JEvDrYFxGorVKj0JyQBeXgz7z8gWHYhOy/9Efn
/qAUNf53KgIv+8rGSZjcWAsFRPGuBQVdTm9YrC6Z5PF2748/DEmG7w+9g6zmdVatwTxV
IpfQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;
bh=EX6q8/AV5gh5FQ3tiHwaaK2vjgEkHwncGYbpPhQ01jE=;
b=YJ+jxHxWTmN+non6Oda14kJvMSbFxegn3KpDVtaTnW7e8J2jAHw5vvsXR7HwDAHx51
PadUnGFypIqdERBomE3cYNs/huxsjO8QSe5vOwKKxAUGQ21dTUpi1HmU7jbwlpH5+auK
lgZwzgL+D+kSIZBmqZ7l1f5X9xHgBhb9RY9MqVnMa7PrDAt96WZNmlbL5otTG1wnFWQ+
63/E3mEDXfKTVh+T6om+LQsNEpxQDQF4PZdMtnax/AKTKeE+dLGRtw1avyVrPvamSbFk
9CCqvBaSL28ZmLVRQ7+XVx4QEq/+/nbUUw6Poi9poM68xSUutRtNL+0kvIPjt8tFyNo6
n/Vw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUgBXckosJmtU6TQjG7Ien+8AgG2YSgExviM43oeX5QI+xYeucHA
FCDRivOpQIuC0XNPEHu5pRHD6MuP2sc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QCa6bFPjj/p9VbASsH3v2B3NxhBtzBa7SjXWwOu8V5LwRXgdU05OMHE3QFXA7vPI4B2Yz3gDg==
X-Received: by 10.159.253.11 with SMTP id p11mr5476923pls.372.1506653103784;
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 19:45:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:646:8080:1291:e45d:dd5d:7212:1e7c?
([2601:646:8080:1291:e45d:dd5d:7212:1e7c])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
a78sm4867718pfl.39.2017.09.28.19.45.03
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 19:45:03 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=gb2312
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15A402)
In-Reply-To: <20170929020227.GA12192@savin.petertodd.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 19:45:02 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FAD5BE01-52B5-49C6-B018-47BF234A5EF2@friedenbach.org>
References: <359FFE85-86AF-4FBD-9491-3528382E5002@friedenbach.org>
<20170929020227.GA12192@savin.petertodd.org>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 03:03:47 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Rebatable fees & incentive-safe fee markets
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 02:45:05 -0000
> On Sep 28, 2017, at 7:02 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
>=20
>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 06:06:29PM -0700, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-de=
v wrote:
>> Unlike other proposed fixes to the fee model, this is not trivially
>> broken by paying the miner out of band. If you pay out of band fee
>> instead of regular fee, then your transaction cannot be included with
>> other regular fee paying transactions without the miner giving up all
>> regular fee income. Any transaction paying less fee in-band than the
>> otherwise minimum fee rate needs to also provide ~1Mvbyte * fee rate
>> difference fee to make up for that lost income. So out of band fee is
>> only realistically considered when it pays on top of a regular feerate
>> paying transaction that would have been included in the block anyway.
>> And what would be the point of that?
>=20
> This proposed fix is itself broken, because the miner can easily include *=
only*
> transactions paying out-of-band, at which point the fee can be anything.
And in doing so either reduce the claimable income from other transactions (=
miner won=A1=AFt do that), or require paying more non-rebateable fee than is=
needed to get in the block (why would the user do that?)
This is specifically addressed in the text you quoted.=20
> Equally, miners can provide fee *rebates*, forcing up prices for everyone e=
lse
> while still allowing them to make deals.
Discounted by the fact rebates would not be honored by other miners. The reb=
ate would have to be higher than what they could get from straight fee colle=
ction, making it less profitable than doing nothing.=20
> Also, remember that you can pay fees via anyone-can-spend outputs, as mine=
rs
> have full ability to control what transactions end up spending those outpu=
ts.
You=A1=AFd still have to pay the minimum fee rate of the other transactions o=
r you=A1=AFd bring down the miners income. Otherwise this is nearly the same=
cost as the rebate fee, since they both involve explicit outputs claimed by=
the miner, but the rebate goes back to you. So why would you not want to do=
that instead?
A different way of looking at this proposal is that it creates a penalty for=
out of band payments.=20=
|
