* [bitcoin-dev] Time to lower minrelaytxfee ?
@ 2020-08-21 5:55 Dan Bryant
2020-08-21 16:36 ` Nadav Ivgi
2020-08-21 16:57 ` Greg Sanders
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Dan Bryant @ 2020-08-21 5:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
It's been 5 years since minrealytxfee was lowered. At the time
bitcoin was trading for $255 and it was agreed that the fee of 5000
sat/vkB was too high. It was lowered to 1000 sat/vkB. In regards to
how much anti-DoS protection that provided, it comes out to $0.00255 /
vkB in USD terms. To have parity with the last reduction, we would
need to reduce minrealytxfee to 22 sat/vKB, though an even more
conservative reduction to 100 or 50 sat/vKB would be welcome.
With the growing adoption of LN, there is a need for ultra-low-fee
on-chain TXNs. Having these queue and confirm overnight, or even
waiting until the Sunday lull would still probably be welcome to many
users. The fact that the mempool is going empty at least every week
indicates that miners have not reached the floor of what they are
willing to mine.
About 2 years ago there was a PR (#13922) to try to make a reduction
from 1000 to 200 sat/vkB. It was widely accepted but the submitter
eventually closed it in favor of PR #13990.
If minrelaytxfee is already parameterized and configurable in
bitcoin.conf, how could it be detrimental to operation of a node to
change the default?
References:
* https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9e93640be6c49fa1505ba5c5df8c89210da5a6e4
* https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13922
* https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13990
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Time to lower minrelaytxfee ?
2020-08-21 5:55 [bitcoin-dev] Time to lower minrelaytxfee ? Dan Bryant
@ 2020-08-21 16:36 ` Nadav Ivgi
2020-08-21 16:57 ` Greg Sanders
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Nadav Ivgi @ 2020-08-21 16:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: DKBryant, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2331 bytes --]
Having large portions of the network using a different minrelayfee could
make it easier to reliably get different parts of the network to accept
different conflicting transactions into their mempools, which could
potentially be used to double-spend unconfirmed non-rbf transactions with
more ease. Node operators that accept unconfirmed payments with a
minrelayfee that's higher than what other nodes/miners are typically
accepting would be at risk.
Relying on unconfirmed transactions is of course discouraged so I'm not
sure how much weight this should be given if at all, but I thought it was
at least worth bringing up.
Nadav
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 11:00 AM Dan Bryant via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> It's been 5 years since minrealytxfee was lowered. At the time
> bitcoin was trading for $255 and it was agreed that the fee of 5000
> sat/vkB was too high. It was lowered to 1000 sat/vkB. In regards to
> how much anti-DoS protection that provided, it comes out to $0.00255 /
> vkB in USD terms. To have parity with the last reduction, we would
> need to reduce minrealytxfee to 22 sat/vKB, though an even more
> conservative reduction to 100 or 50 sat/vKB would be welcome.
>
> With the growing adoption of LN, there is a need for ultra-low-fee
> on-chain TXNs. Having these queue and confirm overnight, or even
> waiting until the Sunday lull would still probably be welcome to many
> users. The fact that the mempool is going empty at least every week
> indicates that miners have not reached the floor of what they are
> willing to mine.
>
> About 2 years ago there was a PR (#13922) to try to make a reduction
> from 1000 to 200 sat/vkB. It was widely accepted but the submitter
> eventually closed it in favor of PR #13990.
>
> If minrelaytxfee is already parameterized and configurable in
> bitcoin.conf, how could it be detrimental to operation of a node to
> change the default?
>
> References:
>
> *
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9e93640be6c49fa1505ba5c5df8c89210da5a6e4
> * https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13922
> * https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13990
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3314 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Time to lower minrelaytxfee ?
2020-08-21 5:55 [bitcoin-dev] Time to lower minrelaytxfee ? Dan Bryant
2020-08-21 16:36 ` Nadav Ivgi
@ 2020-08-21 16:57 ` Greg Sanders
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Greg Sanders @ 2020-08-21 16:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: DKBryant, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1926 bytes --]
No strong opinions but:
Denial of service attacks can become 5x cheaper.
If you don't thoroughly test
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16499 these
changes you can end up with bugs that can cause issues on p2p network.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 4:00 AM Dan Bryant via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> It's been 5 years since minrealytxfee was lowered. At the time
> bitcoin was trading for $255 and it was agreed that the fee of 5000
> sat/vkB was too high. It was lowered to 1000 sat/vkB. In regards to
> how much anti-DoS protection that provided, it comes out to $0.00255 /
> vkB in USD terms. To have parity with the last reduction, we would
> need to reduce minrealytxfee to 22 sat/vKB, though an even more
> conservative reduction to 100 or 50 sat/vKB would be welcome.
>
> With the growing adoption of LN, there is a need for ultra-low-fee
> on-chain TXNs. Having these queue and confirm overnight, or even
> waiting until the Sunday lull would still probably be welcome to many
> users. The fact that the mempool is going empty at least every week
> indicates that miners have not reached the floor of what they are
> willing to mine.
>
> About 2 years ago there was a PR (#13922) to try to make a reduction
> from 1000 to 200 sat/vkB. It was widely accepted but the submitter
> eventually closed it in favor of PR #13990.
>
> If minrelaytxfee is already parameterized and configurable in
> bitcoin.conf, how could it be detrimental to operation of a node to
> change the default?
>
> References:
>
> *
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9e93640be6c49fa1505ba5c5df8c89210da5a6e4
> * https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13922
> * https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13990
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2948 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-08-21 16:57 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-08-21 5:55 [bitcoin-dev] Time to lower minrelaytxfee ? Dan Bryant
2020-08-21 16:36 ` Nadav Ivgi
2020-08-21 16:57 ` Greg Sanders
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox