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
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
|
Return-Path: <thealanevans@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4DA3113A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 24 Jan 2018 13:43:31 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ot0-f169.google.com (mail-ot0-f169.google.com
[74.125.82.169])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26FB1360
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 24 Jan 2018 13:43:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ot0-f169.google.com with SMTP id v5so3601405oth.5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 24 Jan 2018 05:43:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=Mhtw6S6AGMRim0Fs7ODBL/CMrkDFWgxW2Lzq/KBqjGM=;
b=WAkSF1tzpwOh5NK+AsVzrtDDvG15BPdL2x2Z0hAE5lillJWXvmjLYvN57mdrJKwraN
9WHp4KR0IDWfrFVM8NajCETrTakU33gMUlqrys97VbWo9rfbc58S3h+f+1GjDDsKhFbC
bw97Ty3AxgR/r9C7U7vGitac6NhUHmXwSW4rRG/NZ76+myOIhJVU/lquDw46G5Gykm3T
gPvzWEWceMgFkBbRAfa9biSNRTtR3Qm8fy2+Yt2JYAIWpnzogTjdw66uxLHYFwOahaHc
12hEZDwyGbGtuRxoRvouAldmml0kQ5e7L73MxZip6KgGzshSpcMdtSuZxbPBjPGXaAgf
Io7g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=Mhtw6S6AGMRim0Fs7ODBL/CMrkDFWgxW2Lzq/KBqjGM=;
b=XS8QguhW6WAtkuq1V98NCBu4d/7+WscOOzkWn5vhG79BMV6lDX9tHdsf/x2HdBmA9V
Ec2cTHsksT85qGEE4rUbIYBnTsa40svGmK1VWLV9EaptBB5Wvj6NrIdEEu7o03oMu5QP
feBgNjNvhi4j2LXp2D/3w62PLJwUHpiTqTgoTM9xCDQKjGod8RCnOuoWlmJcN1CXZj6m
+oorT/XvmadsjVtC4oK464r/PBxvCMjKCJNTs8jj0PCIJRndT/w6ek/O/SR4+IJsdYxo
B4HOO+l37KTTleqW7+qsHjh4sicKP1T/+S/IylN+ZFlNv9pXUyGp7trabusOrpnBG1mq
cQfA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdEseHJpFYj8v8BrJjpwDEa00vSnbMtcjg2s1U1hD0mWVWzAPO9
WYO2Sl8B02Qu2UJkyyHWe065SVx3y8lCW88hgzPoHA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225Cqgz86PRqDiAyJ5KOT6vChDHjR0UMthUIJm49kVnPEfwYd0LEw3nDHWfQYnWnb9VoPYk+7PaRU3ra0OkKyXI=
X-Received: by 10.157.39.229 with SMTP id c92mr8955768otb.212.1516801410440;
Wed, 24 Jan 2018 05:43:30 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.74.140.104 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 05:43:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20180124074453.GC12767@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <M8yPGuNmrXfNNwrYDDLpTVb__BhGysVW060Cq_tMc-AC6F7pKd1Vvb4wWbpmhhEvfoQ7fn-EcgfxRwJSVkFAZ5x57hg9XxpdZlDPi2IBJZg=@protonmail.com>
<20180122200023.GA1055@savin.petertodd.org>
<7yyS0mCgC8UWMYR_Jf1hB_GkkGj6Iu8tnIO7TeXWWyCrg9j4RZ7ziprCPZcv2xsFZdUzcFuHyeMU2-RBujzlSXdUAWlqdricuL2abaX0PWE=@protonmail.com>
<CACiOHGw=XUe6Fxmh8JkNPZWK1d3hWaaVPsNy1dPNoU1qULckrA@mail.gmail.com>
<oY5fxEk2FEJwHTtN9hKit2Unfu9C6CpSKLOVr0Tu99W_ctym_TNtEPLjgSg77e_RePgWHLBF7sNZoXa11aDgm6ClDxT33Jz2M-q3HZC1n40=@protonmail.com>
<CAAS2fgQBMSOhDBUZ6d9cG7fHg4tRr8o+E0j3ZXhdHkxv4kTwUA@mail.gmail.com>
<20180124074453.GC12767@savin.petertodd.org>
From: Alan Evans <thealanevans@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:43:29 -0400
Message-ID: <CALPhJayjSopa6qPDAo=8-FVCz5+SjXneGMmoYF2Yi2p3FrCb0g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c04707843a4b4056385d972"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:34:59 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Transaction Merging (bip125 relaxation)
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: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 13:43:31 -0000
--94eb2c04707843a4b4056385d972
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
So, OP, in your scenario, you have 1 transaction in the mempool, A, then
you want to spend the change before confirmation, so you broadcast a new
transaction, B, which replaces A.
> Because the size of the merged transaction is smaller than the original
transactions, unless there is a considerable feerate bump, this rule isn't
possible to observe.
I'm confused, the mempool only sees 1 transaction at a time, first A, then
later B. " the original transactions", plural, should not exist in the
mempool.
B's fee and rate needs to be larger than A's, but B will be greater than or
equal to A anyway. So, just increasing the fee rate will cause a larger fee
anyway.
Am I missing something?
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 3:44 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:49:34PM +0000, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:19 PM, Rhavar via bitcoin-dev
> > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > Interesting. I didn't think about this before, but it seems like
> bip125 is
> > > rather incentive incompatible right now? If we're assuming a
> competitive
> > > mempool, it really doesn't seem generally rational to accept a
> replacement
> > > transaction of a lower fee rate.
> >
> > BIP125 replacement requires that the fee rate increases. The text of
> > the BIP document is written in a confusing way that doesn't make this
> > clear.
>
> In fact I considered only requiring an increase in fee rate, based on the
> theory that if absolute fee went down, the transaction must be smaller and
> thus
> miners could overall earn more from the additional transactions they could
> fit
> into their block. But to do that properly requires considering whether or
> not
> that's actually true in the particular state the mempool as a whole
> happens to
> be in, so I ditched that idea early on for the much simpler criteria of
> both a
> feerate and absolute fee increase.
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
--94eb2c04707843a4b4056385d972
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">So, OP, in your scenario, you have 1 transaction in the me=
mpool, A, then you want to spend the change before confirmation, so you bro=
adcast a new transaction, B, which replaces A.<div><br></div><div><span sty=
le=3D"font-size:12.8px">> Because the size of the merged transaction is =
smaller than the original transactions, unless there is a considerable feer=
ate bump, this rule isn't possible to observe.</span></div><div><span s=
tyle=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12=
.8px">I'm confused, the mempool=C2=A0only sees 1 transaction at a time,=
first A, then later B. "</span><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">=C2=
=A0</span><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">the original transactions",=
plural, should not exist in the mempool.</span></div><div><span style=3D"f=
ont-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">B&#=
39;s fee and rate needs to be larger than A's, but B will be greater th=
an or equal to A anyway. So, just increasing the fee rate will cause a larg=
er fee anyway.</span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span=
></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Am I missing something?<br></s=
pan><div><div><br></div></div></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><d=
iv class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 3:44 AM, Peter Todd via bi=
tcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfo=
undation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&g=
t;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0=
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">On Tue,=
Jan 23, 2018 at 10:49:34PM +0000, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:<b=
r>
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:19 PM, Rhavar via bitcoin-dev<br>
> <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-d=
ev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> > Interesting. I didn't think about this before, but it seems l=
ike bip125 is<br>
> > rather incentive incompatible right now? If we're assuming a =
competitive<br>
> > mempool, it really doesn't seem generally rational to accept =
a replacement<br>
> > transaction of a lower fee rate.<br>
><br>
> BIP125 replacement requires that the fee rate increases.=C2=A0 The tex=
t of<br>
> the BIP document is written in a confusing way that doesn't make t=
his<br>
> clear.<br>
<br>
</span>In fact I considered only requiring an increase in fee rate, based o=
n the<br>
theory that if absolute fee went down, the transaction must be smaller and =
thus<br>
miners could overall earn more from the additional transactions they could =
fit<br>
into their block. But to do that properly requires considering whether or n=
ot<br>
that's actually true in the particular state the mempool as a whole hap=
pens to<br>
be in, so I ditched that idea early on for the much simpler criteria of bot=
h a<br>
feerate and absolute fee increase.<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--<br>
</font></span><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><a href=3D"https://pe=
tertodd.org" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://petertodd.org</a>=
'peter'[:-1]@<a href=3D"http://petertodd.org" rel=3D"noreferrer" t=
arget=3D"_blank">petertodd.org</a><br>
</div></div><br>______________________________<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>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
--94eb2c04707843a4b4056385d972--
|
