From: Antoine Riard <antoine.riard@gmail•com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Playing with full-rbf peers for fun and L2s security
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 02:56:14 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALZpt+Hppw+5cRtjkxvmf94h+AvfthnfeeZGyxVKLq7EM9UHhA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YrS7a0E7xLswLD92@petertodd.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3022 bytes --]
> I'd suggest doing that right now, without waiting for the patch to get
merged,
> as it improves the politics of getting the patch merged. Miners tend to
run
> customized bitcoind's anyway.
Philosophically, I think we're better off arguing code patches free from a
political framework and rather reasoning from scientific or engineering
principles. If a change is adopted it should be in the name of making the
whole system better, making the new situation a win-win game.
That said, and more pragmatically, now that the full-rbf patch is merged in
Core there is the pedagogical work of explaining the fee upsides of turning
on full-rbf setting to enough miners. AFAIK, we don't have public,
broadcast-all communication channels between developers and mining
operators to exchange on software upgrades (e.g Stratum V2). I think I'm
left with the process of reaching out to miner one by one.
Le jeu. 23 juin 2022 à 20:13, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> a écrit :
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 07:45:48PM -0400, Antoine Riard wrote:
> > > BTW I changed one of my OTS calendars to issue fee-bumping txs without
> the
> > > opt-in RBF flag set as an experiment. I also made sure txs would
> > propagate to
> > > the above node. As of right now, it's up to 32 replacements (once per
> > block),
> > > without any of them mined; the calendars use the strategy of starting
> at
> > the
> > > minimum possible fee, and bumping the fee up every time a new block
> > arrives
> > > without the tx getting mined. So that's evidence we don't have much
> > full-rbf
> > > hash power at this moment.
> > >
> > > You can see the current status at:
> > https://alice.btc.calendar.opentimestamps.org/
> >
> > That's interesting. I'm not sure if we can conclude of the absence of
> > full-rbf hash power at this moment, as it could also be a lack of
> full-rbf
> > propagation path towards such potential hash power. I think the day we
> see
> > an opt-out replacement transaction mined, it would constitute a good hint
> > of full-rbf hash power (assuming the tx-relay topology stays relatively
> > stable across the transaction issuance...)
>
> Fees are relatively low right now, so there could be 1% or so of full-rbf
> hash
> power and I wouldn't notice with this particular technique as the initial
> tx
> gets mined within 10-20 blocks; a few years back similar experiments were
> finding a few percentage points of hashing power running full-rbf.
>
> > Anyway, if/when the `fullrbf` patch lands in Bitcoin Core, including
> > automatic outbound connections to few `NODE_REPLACE_BY_FEE` peers, I'm
> > thinking of reaching out to a few mining node operators to advocate them
> > with the new policy setting.
>
> I'd suggest doing that right now, without waiting for the patch to get
> merged,
> as it improves the politics of getting the patch merged. Miners tend to run
> customized bitcoind's anyway.
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3912 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-24 1:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-14 0:25 Antoine Riard
2022-06-15 2:27 ` Peter Todd
2022-06-15 2:53 ` Luke Dashjr
2022-06-15 3:18 ` Peter Todd
2022-06-16 0:16 ` alicexbt
2022-06-16 1:02 ` Greg Sanders
2022-06-16 1:45 ` alicexbt
2022-06-16 5:43 ` linuxfoundation.cndm1
2022-06-16 12:47 ` alicexbt
2022-06-16 13:24 ` Greg Sanders
[not found] ` <gmDNbfrrvaZL4akV2DFwCuKrls9SScQjqxeRoEorEiYlv24dPt1j583iOtcB2lFrxZc59N3kp7T9KIM4ycl4QOmGBfDOUmO-BVHsttvtvDc=@protonmail.com>
2022-06-17 1:34 ` Antoine Riard
2022-06-17 4:54 ` alicexbt
2022-06-19 10:42 ` Peter Todd
2022-06-21 23:43 ` Antoine Riard
2022-06-26 16:40 ` alicexbt
2022-06-27 0:43 ` Peter Todd
2022-06-27 12:03 ` Greg Sanders
2022-06-27 13:46 ` Peter Todd
2022-07-05 20:46 ` alicexbt
2022-07-08 14:53 ` Peter Todd
2022-07-08 15:09 ` Greg Sanders
2022-07-08 19:44 ` alicexbt
2022-07-09 15:06 ` Antoine Riard
2022-06-20 23:49 ` Peter Todd
2022-06-21 23:45 ` Antoine Riard
2022-06-23 19:13 ` Peter Todd
2022-08-24 1:56 ` Antoine Riard [this message]
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=CALZpt+Hppw+5cRtjkxvmf94h+AvfthnfeeZGyxVKLq7EM9UHhA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=antoine.riard@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--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