📅 Original date posted:2017-12-03
📝 Original message:# BIP Proposal: UTWFOTIB - Use Transaction Weight For Ordering Transactions In Blocks
I admit, with my limited experience in the operation of the protocol, the section entitled 'Solution operation' may not be entirely correct but you will get the idea. If I have it wrong, please correct it back to the list.
## The problem:
Everybody wants value. Miners want to maximize revenue from fees. Consumers want transaction reliability and, (we presume) low fees.
Current transaction bandwidth limit is a limiting factor for both.
## Solution summary:
Provide each transaction with a transaction weight, being a function of the fee paid (on a curve), and the time waiting in the transaction pool (also on a curve) out to n days (n=30 ?); the transaction weight serving as the likelihood of a transaction being included in the current block, and then use a target block size.
Protocol enforcement to prevent high or low blocksize cheating to be handled by having the protocol determine the target size for the current block using; current transaction pool size x ( 1 / (144 x n days ) ) = transactions to be included in the current block.
The curves used for the weight of transactions would have to be appropriate.
## Pros:
* Maximizes transaction reliability.
* Maximizes possibility for consumer and business uptake.
* Maximizes total fees paid per block without reducing reliability; because of reliability, confidence and uptake are greater; therefore, more transactions and more transactions total at priority fees.
* Market determines fee paid for transaction priority.
* Fee recommendations work all the way out to 30 days or greater.
* Provides additional block entropy and greater security since there is less probability of predicting the next block.
## Cons:
* ?
* Must be first be programmed.
* Anything else?
## Solution operation:
As I have said, my simplistic view of the operation. If I have this wrong, please correct it back to the list.
1. The protocol determines the target block size.
2. Assign each transaction in the pool a transaction weight based on fee and time waiting in the transaction pool.
3. Begin selecting transactions to include in the current block using transaction weight as the likelihood of inclusion until target block size is met.
4. Solve block.
Regards,
Damian Williamson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20171203/15371876/attachment-0001.html>;
Damian Williamson [ARCHIVE] /
npub1sp…8lz2h
2023-06-07 18:08:13
in reply to nevent1q…q7w3
Author Public Key
npub1spe4rkz350zpn7h2pz07t8sdwgt440zmx9k530afwj6gmq7q0lksh8lz2hPublished at
2023-06-07 18:08:13Event JSON
{
"id": "d7addcc2905b03279f075ba972177d025552ea645582e96629e957bff8797354",
"pubkey": "807351d851a3c419faea089fe59e0d72175abc5b316d48bfa974b48d83c07fed",
"created_at": 1686161293,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"951044c4b5711f9ef1d20b7eddb96f15929b3f252d708006080ed5fadb7dcce3",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a23dbf6c6cc83e14cc3df4e56cc71845f611908084cfe620e83e40c06ccdd3d0"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-12-03\n📝 Original message:# BIP Proposal: UTWFOTIB - Use Transaction Weight For Ordering Transactions In Blocks\n\nI admit, with my limited experience in the operation of the protocol, the section entitled 'Solution operation' may not be entirely correct but you will get the idea. If I have it wrong, please correct it back to the list.\n\n\n## The problem:\n\n\nEverybody wants value. Miners want to maximize revenue from fees. Consumers want transaction reliability and, (we presume) low fees.\n\nCurrent transaction bandwidth limit is a limiting factor for both.\n\n\n## Solution summary:\n\n\nProvide each transaction with a transaction weight, being a function of the fee paid (on a curve), and the time waiting in the transaction pool (also on a curve) out to n days (n=30 ?); the transaction weight serving as the likelihood of a transaction being included in the current block, and then use a target block size.\n\nProtocol enforcement to prevent high or low blocksize cheating to be handled by having the protocol determine the target size for the current block using; current transaction pool size x ( 1 / (144 x n days ) ) = transactions to be included in the current block.\n\nThe curves used for the weight of transactions would have to be appropriate.\n\n\n## Pros:\n\n* Maximizes transaction reliability.\n* Maximizes possibility for consumer and business uptake.\n* Maximizes total fees paid per block without reducing reliability; because of reliability, confidence and uptake are greater; therefore, more transactions and more transactions total at priority fees.\n* Market determines fee paid for transaction priority.\n\n* Fee recommendations work all the way out to 30 days or greater.\n\n* Provides additional block entropy and greater security since there is less probability of predicting the next block.\n\n\n## Cons:\n\n* ?\n* Must be first be programmed.\n* Anything else?\n\n\n## Solution operation:\n\n\nAs I have said, my simplistic view of the operation. If I have this wrong, please correct it back to the list.\n\n1. The protocol determines the target block size.\n\n2. Assign each transaction in the pool a transaction weight based on fee and time waiting in the transaction pool.\n\n3. Begin selecting transactions to include in the current block using transaction weight as the likelihood of inclusion until target block size is met.\n\n4. Solve block.\n\n\nRegards,\n\nDamian Williamson\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20171203/15371876/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "70d8c459f9e270004dfc91d4a67fe3f284c0699d89406a80572874d2febb629a5cf0064104b15a9b11ae7df22d20a0ddddf61c483670697c70a44e0fa228afcc"
}