From: Nathan Wilcox <nathan@leastauthority•com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: SPV Fee Discovery mechanism
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 12:30:54 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFdHNGg-gJ99L4oartyMMX3PhykhekNbuLrs7Z8JN0zTpwgaZw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150610200323.GA13724@savin.petertodd.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1859 bytes --]
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 02:00:27PM -0600, Nathan Wilcox wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail•com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > It could be done by agreeing on a data format and encoding it in an
> > > op_return output in the coinbase transaction. If it catches on it could
> > > later be enforced with a soft fork.
> > >
> > >
> > Sounds plausible, except SPV protocols would need to include this
> coinbase
> > txn if it's going to help SPV clients. (Until a softfork is activated,
> SPV
> > clients should not rely on this encoding, since until that time the
> results
> > can be fabricated by individual miners.)
>
> Fee stats can always be fabricated by individual miners because fees can
> be paid out-of-band.
>
>
This is a point I hadn't considered carefully before. I don't understand
the marketplace here or why miners would want to move fees outside of
explicit inband fees. Implicit in this proposal is that the statistics only
cover in-band data, because that's the scope of consensus rules, and thus
the proposal is only as useful as the information of in-band fees is useful.
I've also noticed a detracting technical argument given a particular
tradeoff:
A Header-PoW-verifying client could still be given all transactions in a
recent block, from which it can see the in-band fees directly. The
trade-off is the size of those transactions versus the need to alter any
consensus rules or do soft forks.
Notice how this trade-off's costs change with maximum block size.
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 00000000000000001245bd2f5c99379ee76836227ded9c08324894faabc0d27f
>
--
Nathan Wilcox
Least Authoritarian
email: nathan@leastauthority•com
twitter: @least_nathan
PGP: 11169993 / AAAC 5675 E3F7 514C 67ED E9C9 3BFE 5263 1116 9993
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2839 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-11 18:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-10 17:37 Nathan Wilcox
2015-06-10 19:19 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-10 20:00 ` Nathan Wilcox
2015-06-10 20:03 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-11 18:30 ` Nathan Wilcox [this message]
2015-06-11 18:55 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-13 15:38 ` Nathan Wilcox
2015-06-10 21:18 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-10 20:26 ` Mike Hearn
2015-06-10 21:18 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-11 10:19 ` Mike Hearn
2015-06-11 13:10 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-11 14:11 ` Martin Lie
2015-06-11 17:10 ` Tom Harding
2015-06-11 17:52 ` Mike Hearn
2015-06-12 6:44 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-11 18:18 ` Nathan Wilcox
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=CAFdHNGg-gJ99L4oartyMMX3PhykhekNbuLrs7Z8JN0zTpwgaZw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=nathan@leastauthority$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=pete@petertodd$(echo .)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