đź“… Original date posted:2017-09-28
đź“ť Original message:> On Sep 28, 2017, at 7:02 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
>
>> 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.
And in doing so either reduce the claimable income from other transactions (miner won’t do that), or require paying more non-rebateable fee than is needed to get in the block (why would the user do that?)
This is specifically addressed in the text you quoted.
> Equally, miners can provide fee *rebates*, forcing up prices for everyone else
> while still allowing them to make deals.
Discounted by the fact rebates would not be honored by other miners. The rebate would have to be higher than what they could get from straight fee collection, making it less profitable than doing nothing.
> 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.
You’d still have to pay the minimum fee rate of the other transactions or you’d bring down the miners income. Otherwise this is nearly the same cost as the rebate fee, since they both involve explicit outputs claimed by the miner, but the rebate goes back to you. So why would you not want to do that instead?
A different way of looking at this proposal is that it creates a penalty for out of band payments.
Mark Friedenbach [ARCHIVE] /
npub1r3…48d0u
2023-06-07 18:06:35
in reply to nevent1q…q4zw
Author Public Key
npub1r3san9v5njl6798hvauyu9ntm6r9c7u8s0t65wls58gpfdcvqp5sa48d0uPublished at
2023-06-07 18:06:35Event JSON
{
"id": "b92bd237b153026c826585e3852d1cac0494764b70538503fbf09eb564ff0f65",
"pubkey": "1c61d995949cbfaf14f767784e166bde865c7b8783d7aa3bf0a1d014b70c0069",
"created_at": 1686161195,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ae5bb64562efc3a1339440e5c70f6b3b8b12997d5b034703d0bb377a6fd6447b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"d7c690c33440e8d7a46ad6d4b1df359c516906b434165006c1ba90550ec64479",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-09-28\n📝 Original message:\u003e On Sep 28, 2017, at 7:02 PM, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 06:06:29PM -0700, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Unlike other proposed fixes to the fee model, this is not trivially\n\u003e\u003e broken by paying the miner out of band. If you pay out of band fee\n\u003e\u003e instead of regular fee, then your transaction cannot be included with\n\u003e\u003e other regular fee paying transactions without the miner giving up all\n\u003e\u003e regular fee income. Any transaction paying less fee in-band than the\n\u003e\u003e otherwise minimum fee rate needs to also provide ~1Mvbyte * fee rate\n\u003e\u003e difference fee to make up for that lost income. So out of band fee is\n\u003e\u003e only realistically considered when it pays on top of a regular feerate\n\u003e\u003e paying transaction that would have been included in the block anyway.\n\u003e\u003e And what would be the point of that?\n\u003e \n\u003e This proposed fix is itself broken, because the miner can easily include *only*\n\u003e transactions paying out-of-band, at which point the fee can be anything.\n\nAnd in doing so either reduce the claimable income from other transactions (miner won’t do that), or require paying more non-rebateable fee than is needed to get in the block (why would the user do that?)\n\nThis is specifically addressed in the text you quoted. \n\n\u003e Equally, miners can provide fee *rebates*, forcing up prices for everyone else\n\u003e while still allowing them to make deals.\n\nDiscounted by the fact rebates would not be honored by other miners. The rebate would have to be higher than what they could get from straight fee collection, making it less profitable than doing nothing. \n\n\u003e Also, remember that you can pay fees via anyone-can-spend outputs, as miners\n\u003e have full ability to control what transactions end up spending those outputs.\n\nYou’d still have to pay the minimum fee rate of the other transactions or you’d bring down the miners income. Otherwise this is nearly the same cost as the rebate fee, since they both involve explicit outputs claimed by the miner, but the rebate goes back to you. So why would you not want to do that instead?\n\nA different way of looking at this proposal is that it creates a penalty for out of band payments.",
"sig": "cbc21571b766018ec20c93fe3a9830fd214eccee654edad895605baa429f59fbe3bc960d508bd178ef28f827926e5f6411496da258c871c6cb8f3e14809eaaf7"
}