public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Aaradhya Chauhan <chauhanansh.me@gmail•com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>,
	 "David A. Harding" <dave@dtrt•org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Regarding setting a lower minrelaytxfee
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2022 00:29:31 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGHFe1BxFX_v3FKTHMTbV+WARX5MjuJ6Y7=NdMc-wVYZDQUa7Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f889c7fc9db56ed448237c8a4091abaa@dtrt.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4294 bytes --]

I think you misunderstood what I said. I did not say that it should be done
now, for the obvious reasons that the miners won't be doing any good by
such measures. But I am talking about when the price of BTC escalates to a
point when 1sat/vB becomes expensive as a dust limit. If the price
oscillates at that point and above, it would actually create the same
incentives as it is today. All I imply is to maintain the affordability of
the minimum possible fee if one is ready to wait.

On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 at 9:08 AM David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On 2022-07-26 02:45, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 01:56:05PM +0530, Aaradhya Chauhan via
> > bitcoin-dev wrote:
> >> [...] in its early days, 1 sat/vB was a good dust protection
> >> measure. But now, I think it's a bit high [...] I think it can be done
> >> easily [...]
> >
> > [...] lowering the dust limit now is a good way to ensure
> > the entire ecosystem is ready to deal with those conditions.
>
> I don't have anything new to add to the conversation at this time, but I
> did want to suggest a clarification and summarize some previous
> discussion that might be useful.
>
> I think the phrasing by Aaradhya Chauhan and Peter Todd above are
> conflating the minimum output amount policy ("dust limit") with the
> minimum transaction relay feerate policy ("min tx relay fee").  Any
> transaction with an output amount below a node's configured dust limit
> (a few hundred sat by default) will not be relayed by that node no
> matter how high of a feerate it pays.  Any transaction with feerate
> below a nodes's minimum relay feerate (1 sat/vbyte by default) will not
> be relayed by that node even if the node has unused space in its mempool
> and peers that use BIP133 feefilters to advertise that they would accept
> low feerates.
>
> Removing the dust limit was discussed extensively a year ago[1] with
> additional follow-up discussion about eight months ago.[2]
>
> Lowering the minimum relay feerate was seriously proposed in a patch to
> Bitcoin Core four years ago[3] with additional related PRs being opened
> to ease the change.  Not all of the related PRs have been merged yet,
> and the original PR was closed.  I can't easily find some of the
> discussions I remember related to that change, but IIRC part of the
> challenge was that lower minimum relay fees reduce the cost of a variety
> of DoS attacks which could impact BIP152 compact blocks and erlay
> efficiency, could worsen transaction pinning, may increase IBD time due
> to more block chain data, and have other adverse effects.  Additionally,
> we've found in the past that some people who build systems that take
> advantage of low feerates become upset when feerates rise, sometimes
> creating problems even for people who prepared for eventual feerate
> rises.
>
> Compared to the complexity of lowering the minimum feerate, the
> challenges of preventing denial/degregation-of-service attacks, and
> dealing with a fragmented userbase, the economic benefit of reducing the
> feerates for the bottom of the mempool seems small---if we lower min
> feerates to 1/10th their current values and that results in the
> equivalent of an extra 10 blocks of transactions getting mined a day,
> then users save a total of 0.09 BTC (~$1,800 USD) per day and miners
> earn an extra 0.01 BTC ($200 USD) per day (assuming all other things
> remain equal).[4]
>
> -Dave
>
> [1]
>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-August/019307.html
> [2]
>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-December/019635.html
> [3] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13922
> [4] The current min relay fee is 1 sat/vbyte.  There are ~1 million
> vbytes in a block that can be allocated to regular transactions.  Ten
> blocks at the current min relay fee would pay (10 * 1e6 / 1e8 = 0.1 BTC)
> in fees.  Ten blocks at 1/10 sat/vbyte would thus pay 0.01 BTC in fees,
> which is $200 USD @ $20k/BTC.  Thus users would save (0.1 - 0.01 = 0.09
> BTC = $1,800 USD @ $20k/BTC).
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5705 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2022-07-29 18:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-07-26  8:26 Aaradhya Chauhan
2022-07-26 12:19 ` alicexbt
2022-07-26 14:27   ` Peter Todd
2022-07-26 19:14     ` alicexbt
2022-07-26 12:45 ` Peter Todd
2022-07-27  4:10   ` vjudeu
2022-07-27 11:50     ` Peter Todd
2022-07-27 12:18       ` vjudeu
2022-07-29  3:38   ` David A. Harding
2022-07-29 18:59     ` Aaradhya Chauhan [this message]
2022-07-30  7:55     ` Aaradhya Chauhan
2022-07-30 17:24       ` alicexbt
2022-08-01 10:30         ` Peter Todd
2022-08-01 13:19           ` aliashraf.btc At protonmail
2022-08-01 13:37             ` Peter Todd
2022-08-03 15:40               ` Aaradhya Chauhan
2022-08-03 17:07                 ` vjudeu
2022-08-03 18:22                   ` Aaradhya Chauhan
2022-08-04  1:21                     ` Billy Tetrud
2022-07-30 10:20     ` Peter Todd

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='CAGHFe1BxFX_v3FKTHMTbV+WARX5MjuJ6Y7=NdMc-wVYZDQUa7Q@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=chauhanansh.me@gmail$(echo .)com \
    --cc=aaradhya@technovanti$(echo .)co.in \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=dave@dtrt$(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