On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:40:31PM -0500, Rhavar via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> So my half-baked idea is very simple:
> 
> Allow users to merge multiple unconfirmed transactions, stripping extraneous inputs and change as they go.
> 
> This is currently not possible because of the bip125 rule:
> "The replacement transaction pays an absolute fee of at least the sum paid by the original transactions."
> 
> 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 my question is: is it possible or reasonable to relax this rule? If this rule was removed in its entirety, does it introduce any DoS vectors? Or can it be changed to allow my use-case?

It would definitely introduce DoS vectors by making it much cheaper to use
relay bandwidth. You'd also be able to push others' txs out of the mempool.

> ---
> Full backstory: I have been trying to use bip125 (Opt-in Full Replace-by-Fee) to do "transaction merging" on the fly. Let's say that I owe John 1 bitcoin, and have promised to pay him immediately: Instead of creating a whole new transaction if I have an in-flight (unconfirmed) transaction, I can follow the rules of bip125 to create a replacement that accomplishes this goal.
> 
> From a "coin selection" point of view, this was significantly easier than
> I had anticipated. I was able to encode the rules in my linear model and
> feed in all my unspent and in-flight transactions and it can solve it without difficulty.
> 
> However, the real problem is tracking the mess. Consider this sequence of events:
> 1) I have unconfirmed transaction A
> 2) I replace it with B, which pays John 1 BTC
> 3) Transaction A gets confirmed
> 
> So now I still owe John 1 BTC, however it's not immediately clear if
> it's safe to send to him without waiting $n transactions. However even
> for a small $n, this breaks my promise to pay him immediately.
>
> One possible solution is to only consider a transaction "replaceable" if it has change, so if the original transaction confirms -- payments can immediately be made that source the change, and provide safety in a reorg.
> 
> However, this will only work <50% of the time for me (most transactions
> don't have change) and opens a pandora's box of complexity.

Most transactions don't have change?! Under what circumstance? For most
use-cases the reverse is true: almost all all transactions have change, because
it's rare for the inputs to exactly math the requested payment.

-- 
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org