From: darosior <darosior@protonmail•com>
To: james.obeirne@gmail•com, aj@erisian•com.au
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Thoughts on fee bumping
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 09:01:07 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <au9ldiXZxoFyg_63d-PZ2I6BrujV5hWSFdmjnSSbF5IrfD5hZa61dnt7LXm1bORZ7lpQV7_MSoHUUmdpG3MUgXPPmtVXqDxA4m3TfKFwVXU=@protonmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPfvXfLRBdk5-pgX3z+azO+z5DAiGhcR+JRWizhXw9TcYnPhsw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2699 bytes --]
James,
You seem to imply that the scenario described isn't prevented today. It is. The mempool acceptance for a replacement not only
depend on the transaction feerate but also the transaction fee [0]. That's why i raised it in the first place...
Antoine
[0] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/66636ca438cb65fb18bcaa4540856cef0cee2029/src/validation.cpp#L944-L947
Of course if you are evicting transactions then you don't have the issue i mentioned, so it's fine doing so.
-------- Original Message --------
On Feb 17, 2022, 19:18, James O'Beirne < james.obeirne@gmail•com> wrote:
>> Is it really true that miners do/should care about that?
>
> De facto, any miner running an unmodified version of bitcoind doesn't
> care about anything aside from ancestor fee rate, given that the
> BlockAssembler as-written orders transactions for inclusion by
> descending ancestor fee-rate and then greedily adds them to the block
> template. [0]
>
> If anyone has any indication that there are miners running forks of
> bitcoind that change this behavior, I'd be curious to know it.
>
> Along the lines of what AJ wrote, optimal transaction selection is
> NP-hard (knapsack problem). Any time that a miner spends deciding how
> to assemble the next block is time not spent grinding on the nonce, and
> so I'm skeptical that miners in practice are currently doing anything
> that isn't fast and simple like the default implementation: sorting
> fee-rate in descending order and then greedily packing.
>
> But it would be interesting to hear evidence to the contrary.
>
> ---
>
> You can make the argument that transaction selection is just a function
> of mempool contents, and so mempool maintenance criteria might be the
> thing to look at. Mempool acceptance is gated based on a minimum
> feerate[1]. Mempool eviction (when running low on space) happens on
> the basis of max(self_feerate, descendant_feerate) [2]. So even in the
> mempool we're still talking in terms of fee rates, not absolute fees.
>
> That presents us with the "is/ought" problem: just because the mempool
> *is* currently gating only on fee rate doesn't mean that's optimal. But
> if the whole point of the mempool is to hold transactions that will be
> mined, and if there's good reason that txns are chosen for mining based
> on fee rate (it's quick and good enough), then it seems like fee rate
> is the approximation that should ultimately prevail for txn
> replacement.
>
> [0]:
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/node/miner.cpp#L310-L320
> [1]:
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/txmempool.cpp#L1106
> [2]:
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/txmempool.cpp#L1138-L1144
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4299 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-18 9:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-02-10 19:40 James O'Beirne
2022-02-10 23:09 ` Greg Sanders
2022-02-10 23:44 ` darosior
2022-02-10 23:51 ` James O'Beirne
2022-02-11 6:51 ` darosior
2022-02-12 19:44 ` Billy Tetrud
2022-02-11 0:12 ` Matt Corallo
2022-02-14 19:51 ` James O'Beirne
2022-02-17 14:32 ` Anthony Towns
2022-02-17 18:18 ` James O'Beirne
2022-02-18 9:01 ` darosior [this message]
2022-02-18 0:35 ` Antoine Riard
2022-02-11 5:26 ` Antoine Riard
2022-02-14 20:28 ` James O'Beirne
2022-02-15 0:43 ` Antoine Riard
2022-02-15 17:09 ` Billy Tetrud
2022-02-15 20:24 ` Russell O'Connor
2022-02-15 20:53 ` James O'Beirne
2022-02-15 21:37 ` Jeremy Rubin
2022-02-18 21:09 ` [bitcoin-dev] Sponsor transaction engineering, was " David A. Harding
2022-02-15 21:38 ` [bitcoin-dev] " Jeremy Rubin
2022-02-16 2:54 ` Billy Tetrud
2022-02-16 19:18 ` James O'Beirne
2022-02-16 20:36 ` Billy Tetrud
2022-02-18 0:54 Prayank
2022-02-18 2:08 Prayank
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='au9ldiXZxoFyg_63d-PZ2I6BrujV5hWSFdmjnSSbF5IrfD5hZa61dnt7LXm1bORZ7lpQV7_MSoHUUmdpG3MUgXPPmtVXqDxA4m3TfKFwVXU=@protonmail.com' \
--to=darosior@protonmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=aj@erisian$(echo .)com.au \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=james.obeirne@gmail$(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