From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Changing the fee on already sent transactions
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:47:00 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130312094700.GA8130@savin> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1914 bytes --]
We can allow for transaction replacement for the purpose of adding fees
to existing transactions safely, and while not increasing the risk of
double-spends by taking advantage of the stubbed out replacement code.
Specifically the replacement code allows for the replacement of a
transaction if a transaction spending the tx that is being replaced is
not in the mempool. Specifically:
664 // Check for conflicts with in-memory transactions
665 CTransaction* ptxOld = NULL;
666 for (unsigned int i = 0; i < tx.vin.size(); i++)
667 {
668 COutPoint outpoint = tx.vin[i].prevout;
669 if (mapNextTx.count(outpoint)){
Followed by the actual replacement logic. We could change this logic to
instead evaluate if the candidate replacement does not remove or
decrease the value of any existing outputs. Adding outputs is ok.
Changing the set of inputs is also ok, provided that there are no
conflicts with other spent transactions. DoS attacks would be prevented
by only forwarding/accepting into the mempool replacements that increase
the fees paid by at least MIN_RELAY_TX_FEE * size - essentially the same
decision to allow the broadcast of the transaction in the first place.
Because a transaction can not be replaced if another transaction already
depends on it the change would not increse double-spend risks for
unconfirmed transactions.
Along with this change code can be added to clients to examine the
mempool and recent blocks to determine what fee would be required to get
a transaction confirmed in what time.
Of course, considering our recent "fun" last night, I'll be the first to
admit that this change needs a lot of testing and careful thought.
However the ability to increase fees on already broadcast transactions
would be very valuable to users as competition for blockchain space
increases.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]
next reply other threads:[~2013-03-12 9:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-03-12 9:47 Peter Todd [this message]
2013-03-12 13:06 ` Gregory Maxwell
2013-03-12 13:10 ` Luke-Jr
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130312094700.GA8130@savin \
--to=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox