Erik Aronesty [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2023-05-10 🗒️ Summary of this message: Proposal to ...

📅 Original date posted:2023-05-10
🗒️ Summary of this message: Proposal to block transactions with fees higher than the sum of outputs, but it can be bypassed by splitting transactions. Op_ctv allows users to pool fees and share a single utxo.
📝 Original message:confused. the rule was "cannot pay a fee > sum of outputs with
consideration of cpfp in the mempool"

your example is of someone paying a fee "< sum" which wouldn't be blocked

note: again, i'm not a fan of this, i like the discussion of "bitcoin as
money only" and using fee as a lever to do that

show me how someone could move 1 btc and pay 2 btc as fees... i think we
can block it at the network or even the consensus layer, and leave anything
but "non-monetary use cases" intact. the only way around it is to
maintain balances and use change addresses. which would force nft and
timestamp users to maintain these balances and would be a deterrent

im am much more in favor of doing something like op_ctv which allows many
users to pool fees and essentially "share" a single utxo.
.


On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 12:19 PM <vjudeu at gazeta.pl> wrote:

> > possible to change tx "max fee" to output amounts?
>
> Is it possible? Yes. Should we do that? My first thought was "maybe", but
> after thinking more about it, I would say "no", here is why:
>
> Starting point: 1 BTC on some output.
> Current situation: A single transaction moving 0.99999000 BTC as fees, and
> creating 1000 satoshis as some output (I know, allowed dust values are
> lower and depend on address type, but let's say it is 1k sats to make
> things simpler).
>
> And then, there is a room for other solutions, for example your rule,
> mentioned in other posts, like this one:
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-May/021626.html
>
> > probably easier just to reject any transaction where the fee is higher
> than the sum of the outputs
>
> Possible situation after introducing your proposal, step-by-step:
>
> 1) Someone wants to move 1 BTC, and someone wants to pay 0.99999000 BTC as
> fees. Assuming your rules are on consensus level, the first transaction
> creates 0.5 BTC output and 0.5 BTC fee.
> 2) That person still wants to move 0.5 remaining BTC, and still is willing
> to pay 0.49999000 BTC as fees. Guess what will happen: you will see another
> transaction, creating 0.25 BTC output, and paying 0.25 BTC fee.
> ...
> N) Your proposal replaced one transaction, consuming maybe one kilobyte,
> with a lot of transactions, doing exactly the same, but where fees are
> distributed between many transactions.
>
> Before thinking about improving that system, consider one simple thing: is
> it possible to avoid "max fee rule", no matter in what way it will be
> defined? Because as shown above, the answer seems to be "yes", because you
> can always replace a single transaction moving 1 BTC as fees with multiple
> transactions, each paying one satoshi per virtual byte, and then instead of
> consuming around one kilobyte, it would consume around 1 MvB per 0.01 BTC,
> so 100 MvB per 1 BTC mentioned in the example above.
>
>
>
> On 2023-05-08 13:55:18 user Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> possible to change tx "max fee" to output amounts?
>
>
> seems like the only use case that would support such a tx is spam/dos type
> stuff that satoshi warned about
>
>
> its not a fix for everything, but it seems could help a bit with certain
> attacks
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230510/b05e5857/attachment-0001.html>;