public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alex Morcos <morcos@gmail•com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reworking the policy estimation code (fee estimates)
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 11:39:52 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPWm=eWdWqDpB29HW1xMc5i-dWQaLRLpK3MWLPOnpQoRRkhJEA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T2ET_Guoa8J-9irjwOo7vN+9Y3TyEUhdDBWxaYKV1J95w@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2223 bytes --]

RE: 90% : I think it's fine to use 90% for anything other than 1
confirmation, but if you look at the real world data test I did, or the raw
data from this new code, you'll see that even the highest fee rate
transactions only get confirmed at about a 90% rate in 1 block, so that if
you use that as your cut-off you will sometimes get no answer and sometimes
get a very high fee rate and sometimes get a reasonable fee rate, it just
depends because the data is too noisy.  I think thats just because there is
no good answer to that question.  There is no fee you can put on your
transaction to guarantee greater than 90% chance of getting confirmed in
one block.  I think 85% might be safe?

RE: tunable as command-line/bitcoin.conf: sounds good!

OK, sorry to have all this conversation on the dev list, maybe i'll turn
this into an actual PR if we want to comment on the code?
I just wanted to see if it even made sense to make a PR for this or this
isn't the way we wanted to go about it.




On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail•com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Alex Morcos <morcos@gmail•com> wrote:
>>
>> Do you think it would make sense to make that 90% number an argument to
>> rpc call?  For instance there could be a default (I would use 80%) but then
>> you could specify if you required a different certainty.  It wouldn't
>> require any code changes and might make it easier for people to build more
>> complicated logic on top of it.
>>
>
> RE: 80% versus 90% :  I think a default of 80% will get us a lot of "the
> fee estimation logic is broken, I want my transactions to confirm quick and
> a lot of them aren't confirming for 2 or 3 blocks."
>
> RE: RPC argument:  I'm reluctant to give too many 'knobs' for the RPC
> interface. I think the default percentage makes sense as a
> command-line/bitcoin.conf option; I can imagine services that want to save
> on fees running with -estimatefeethreshold=0.5  (or
> -estimatefeethreshold=0.95 if as-fast-as-possible confirmations are
> needed). Setting both the number of confirmations and the estimation
> threshold on a transaction-by-transaction basis seems like overkill to me.
>
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3109 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2014-10-28 15:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-10-27 19:33 Alex Morcos
2014-10-28  9:55 ` Mike Hearn
2014-10-28 12:12   ` Alex Morcos
2014-10-28 13:59 ` Gavin Andresen
2014-10-28 14:30   ` Alex Morcos
2014-10-28 14:55     ` Alex Morcos
2014-10-28 14:58     ` Gavin Andresen
2014-10-28 15:39       ` Alex Morcos [this message]
2014-10-29 20:08 ` 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='CAPWm=eWdWqDpB29HW1xMc5i-dWQaLRLpK3MWLPOnpQoRRkhJEA@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=morcos@gmail$(echo .)com \
    --cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
    --cc=gavinandresen@gmail$(echo .)com \
    /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