From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp•com.au>
To: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo•com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org,
lightning-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] CPFP Carve-Out for Fee-Prediction Issues in Contracting Applications (eg Lightning)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 14:52:39 +1030 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87zhr0gvw0.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <D072562F-5AD0-4B38-94D1-A0AEF04C3DEB@mattcorallo.com>
Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo•com> writes:
>>> Thus, even if you imagine a steady-state mempool growth, unless the
>>> "near the top of the mempool" criteria is "near the top of the next
>>> block" (which is obviously *not* incentive-compatible)
>>
>> I was defining "top of mempool" as "in the first 4 MSipa", ie. next
>> block, and assumed you'd only allow RBF if the old package wasn't in the
>> top and the replacement would be. That seems incentive compatible; more
>> than the current scheme?
>
> My point was, because of block time variance, even that criteria doesn't hold up. If you assume a steady flow of new transactions and one or two blocks come in "late", suddenly "top 4MWeight" isn't likely to get confirmed until a few blocks come in "early". Given block variance within a 12 block window, this is a relatively likely scenario.
[ Digging through old mail. ]
Doesn't really matter. Lightning close algorithm would be:
1. Give bitcoind unileratal close.
2. Ask bitcoind what current expidited fee is (or survey your mempool).
3. Give bitcoind child "push" tx at that total feerate.
4. If next block doesn't contain unilateral close tx, goto 2.
In this case, if you allow a simpified RBF where 'you can replace if
1. feerate is higher, 2. new tx is in first 4Msipa of mempool, 3. old tx isnt',
it works.
It allows someone 100k of free tx spam, sure. But it's simple.
We could further restrict it by marking the unilateral close somehow to
say "gonna be pushed" and further limiting the child tx weight (say,
5kSipa?) in that case.
Cheers,
Rusty.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-13 5:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-29 19:37 [bitcoin-dev] " Matt Corallo
2018-11-30 17:38 ` Russell O'Connor
2018-11-30 19:33 ` Matt Corallo
2018-12-02 15:08 ` Bob McElrath
2018-12-03 4:16 ` [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] " ZmnSCPxj
2018-12-04 3:33 ` Rusty Russell
2019-01-07 15:18 ` Matt Corallo
2019-01-08 5:50 ` Rusty Russell
2019-01-08 14:46 ` Matt Corallo
2019-02-13 4:22 ` Rusty Russell [this message]
2019-10-24 13:49 ` Johan Torås Halseth
2019-10-24 21:25 ` Matt Corallo
2019-10-25 7:05 ` Johan Torås Halseth
2019-10-25 17:30 ` Matt Corallo
2019-10-27 19:13 ` Jeremy
2019-10-28 9:45 ` Johan Torås Halseth
2019-10-28 17:14 ` David A. Harding
2019-10-30 7:22 ` Johan Torås Halseth
2019-10-27 22:54 ` David A. Harding
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=87zhr0gvw0.fsf@rustcorp.com.au \
--to=rusty@rustcorp$(echo .)com.au \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=lf-lists@mattcorallo$(echo .)com \
--cc=lightning-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/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