š
Original date posted:2017-09-28
š Original message:On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 06:06:29PM -0700, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Unlike other proposed fixes to the fee model, this is not trivially
> broken by paying the miner out of band. If you pay out of band fee
> instead of regular fee, then your transaction cannot be included with
> other regular fee paying transactions without the miner giving up all
> regular fee income. Any transaction paying less fee in-band than the
> otherwise minimum fee rate needs to also provide ~1Mvbyte * fee rate
> difference fee to make up for that lost income. So out of band fee is
> only realistically considered when it pays on top of a regular feerate
> paying transaction that would have been included in the block anyway.
> And what would be the point of that?
This proposed fix is itself broken, because the miner can easily include *only*
transactions paying out-of-band, at which point the fee can be anything.
Equally, miners can provide fee *rebates*, forcing up prices for everyone else
while still allowing them to make deals.
Also, remember that you can pay fees via anyone-can-spend outputs, as miners
have full ability to control what transactions end up spending those outputs.
The fact these countermeasures are all likely to be implemented - all of which
harm the overall ecosystem by reducing visibility of fees and making it harder
to compete with centralized miners - makes me very dubious about that proposal.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170928/84259421/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2ā¦a2np2
2023-06-07 18:06:35
in reply to nevent1qā¦n49s
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Published at
2023-06-07 18:06:35Event JSON
{
"id": "d7c690c33440e8d7a46ad6d4b1df359c516906b434165006c1ba90550ec64479",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686161195,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ae5bb64562efc3a1339440e5c70f6b3b8b12997d5b034703d0bb377a6fd6447b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"ccc557e4a704ca1086786981dff11fe4d39e7678fbbc5f526b12a0195083542b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"1c61d995949cbfaf14f767784e166bde865c7b8783d7aa3bf0a1d014b70c0069"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2017-09-28\nš Original message:On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 06:06:29PM -0700, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e Unlike other proposed fixes to the fee model, this is not trivially\n\u003e broken by paying the miner out of band. If you pay out of band fee\n\u003e instead of regular fee, then your transaction cannot be included with\n\u003e other regular fee paying transactions without the miner giving up all\n\u003e regular fee income. Any transaction paying less fee in-band than the\n\u003e otherwise minimum fee rate needs to also provide ~1Mvbyte * fee rate\n\u003e difference fee to make up for that lost income. So out of band fee is\n\u003e only realistically considered when it pays on top of a regular feerate\n\u003e paying transaction that would have been included in the block anyway.\n\u003e And what would be the point of that?\n\nThis proposed fix is itself broken, because the miner can easily include *only*\ntransactions paying out-of-band, at which point the fee can be anything.\nEqually, miners can provide fee *rebates*, forcing up prices for everyone else\nwhile still allowing them to make deals.\n\nAlso, remember that you can pay fees via anyone-can-spend outputs, as miners\nhave full ability to control what transactions end up spending those outputs.\n\nThe fact these countermeasures are all likely to be implemented - all of which\nharm the overall ecosystem by reducing visibility of fees and making it harder\nto compete with centralized miners - makes me very dubious about that proposal.\n\n-- \nhttps://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 455 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170928/84259421/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "9aac49f2ba53da006e40f1c8f15ffd8e93b6581c411739418cc2cd13caa7901e32b2e34c578a17c5dc04a5c999b22ccc25c3286da3713cb9aaad6de6da6bbbcc"
}