From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
To: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian•com.au>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Announcement: Full-RBF Miner Bounty
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 09:43:25 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y3OljVGQbZ/Wj8T6@petertodd.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y3MlSE7AWkBgiCyr@erisian.com.au>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4794 bytes --]
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 03:36:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 01:16:13PM -0500, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > FYI I've gotten a few hundred dollars worth of donations to this effort, and
> > have raised the reward to about 0.02 BTC, or $400 USD at current prices.
>
> Seems like this has been mostly claimed (0.014btc / $235, 9238sat/vb):
I'm turning it back on when (if) the mempool settles down. I've got more than
enough donations to give another run at it (the majority was donated privately
FWIW). There's a risk of the mempool filling up again of course; hard to avoid
that.
Right now of course it's really easy to double spend with the obvious
low-fee/high-fee method as the min relay fee keeps shifting.
> https://mempool.space/tx/397dcbe4e95ec40616e3dfc4ff8ffa158d2e72020b7d11fc2be29d934d69138c
>
> The block it was claimed in seems to have been about an hour after the
> default mempool filled up:
>
> https://twitter.com/murchandamus/status/1592274621977477120
>
> That block actually seems to have included two
> alice.btc.calendar.opentimestamps.org txs, the other paying $7.88
> (309sat/vb):
>
> https://mempool.space/tx/ba9670109a6551458d5e1e23600c7bf2dc094894abdf59fe7aa020ccfead07cf
The second is because I turned down the full-rbf reward to more normal fee
levels. There's also another full-rbf double-spend from the Bob calendar, along
the same lines: 7e76b351009326a574f3120164dbbe6d85e07e04a7bbdc40f0277fcb008d2cd2
I double-spent the txin of the high fee tx that got mined. But I mistakenly had
RBF enabled in that double-spend, so while it propagated initially, I believe
it was replaced when something (someone?) rebroadcast the high-fee 397dcb tx.
> Timeline (utc) to me looks like:
>
> - 13:12 - block 763148 is mined: last one that had a min fee < 1.5sat/vb
> - 13:33 - f503868c64d454c472859b793f3ee7cdc8f519c64f8b1748d8040cd8ce6dc6e1
> is announced and propogates widely (1.2sat/vb)
> - 18:42 - 746daab9bcc331be313818658b4a502bb4f3370a691fd90015fabcd7759e0944
> is announced and propogates widely (1.2sat/vb)
> - 21:52 - ba967010 tx is announced and propogates widely, since
> conflicting tx 746daab9 has been removed from default
> mempools
> - 21:53 - murch tweets about default mempool filling up
> - 22:03 - 397dcbe4 tx is announced and propogates widely, since
> conflicting tx f503868 has already been removed from default
> mempools
Is that 22:03 time for 397 from your node's logs? It was originally announced
hours earlier. From one of my full-rbf nodes:
2022-11-14T14:08:37Z [mempool] replacing tx 764867062b67fea61810c3858d587da83a28290545e882935a32285028084317 with 397dcbe4e95ec40616e3dfc4ff8ffa158d2e72020b7d11fc2be29d934d69138c for 0.00468 additional fees, -1 delta bytes
> - 22:35 - block 763189 is mined
> - 22:39 - block 763190 is mined
> - 23:11 - block 763191 is mined
> - 23:17 - block 763192 is mined including 397dcbe4
>
> miningpool.observer reports both 397dcbe4 and ba967010 as missing in the
> first three blocks, and gives similar mempool ages for those txs to what
> my logs report:
>
> https://miningpool.observer/template-and-block/0000000000000000000436aba59d8430061e0e50592215f7f263bfb1073ccac7
> https://miningpool.observer/template-and-block/00000000000000000005600404792bacfd8a164d2fe9843766afb2bfbd937309
> https://miningpool.observer/template-and-block/00000000000000000004a3073f58c9eae40f251ea7aeaeac870daeac4b238fd1
>
> That presumably means those pools (AntPool twice and "unknown") are
> running with large mempools that didn't kept the earlier 1.2sat/vb txs.
To be clear, you think that AntPool and that other exchange is running with a
larger than normal max mempool size limit? You mean those miners *did* keep the
earlier 1.2sat/vb tx?
> The txs were mined by Foundry:
>
> https://miningpool.observer/template-and-block/00000000000000000001382a226aedac822de80309cca2bf1253b35d4f8144f5
>
> This seems to be pretty good evidence that we currently don't have any
> significant hashrate mining with fullrbf policies (<0.5% if there was a
> high fee replacement available prior to every block having been mined),
> despite the bounty having been collected.
Oh, we can put much lower bounds on that. I've been running OTS calendars with
full-rbf replacements for a few months without clear evidence of a full-rbf
replacement. While there was good reason to think some miners were mining
full-rbf before a few years back, they probably didn't bother to reapply their
patches each upgrade. `mempoolfullrbf=1` is much simpler to use.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-15 14:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-02 9:26 Peter Todd
2022-11-02 19:02 ` alicexbt
2022-11-03 13:32 ` Erik Aronesty
2022-11-09 12:14 ` email
2022-11-08 18:16 ` Peter Todd
2022-11-15 5:36 ` Anthony Towns
2022-11-15 14:43 ` Peter Todd [this message]
2022-12-05 12:20 ` El_Hoy
2022-12-05 13:38 ` Greg Sanders
2022-12-05 14:12 ` Rijndael
2022-12-05 15:33 ` Michael Folkson
2022-12-05 17:00 ` Erik Aronesty
2022-12-06 4:48 ` El_Hoy
2022-12-05 17:25 ` El_Hoy
2022-12-06 5:39 ` Peter Todd
2022-12-06 7:37 ` Peter Todd
2022-12-09 16:04 ` 0xB10C
2022-12-09 21:16 ` Peter Todd
2022-12-10 11:59 ` 0xB10C
2022-12-10 18:07 ` Peter Todd
2022-12-13 4:01 ` Anthony Towns
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=Y3OljVGQbZ/Wj8T6@petertodd.org \
--to=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
--cc=aj@erisian$(echo .)com.au \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.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