"David A. Harding" writes:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 02:46:54PM +0930, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> If that's true, I don't think this proposal makes it worse.
>
> Here's a scenario that I think shows it being at least 20x worse.
[ Snip ]
Indeed :(
To be fair, if I have a transaction
What about this? We store a RBU ("relay bandwidth used") with each transaction
in the mempool. Where RBU is defined as the size of the transaction + RBU of
all transactions it has evicted.
For a replacement to be valid: The feerate must be higher than what it's
evicting, and the fee must be gre
On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 02:46:54PM +0930, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Matt Corallo writes:
> > 2) wrt rule 4, I'd like to see a calculation of worst-case free
> > relay. I think we're already not in a great place, but maybe it's
> > worth it or maybe there is some other way to reduce th
On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 11:59 PM Rusty Russell wrote:
> "Russell O'Connor" writes:
> > Hi Rusty,
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:21 AM Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev <
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> >> The new "emergency RBF" rule:
> >>
> >> 6. If the original transactio
Matt Corallo writes:
> I think this needs significantly improved motivation/description. A few areas
> I'd like to see calculated out:
>
> 1) wrt rule 3, for this to be
> obviously-incentive-compatible-for-the-next-miner, I'd think no evicted
> transactions would be allowed to be in the next bl
"Russell O'Connor" writes:
> Hi Rusty,
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:21 AM Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> The new "emergency RBF" rule:
>>
>> 6. If the original transaction was not in the first 4,000,000 weight
>> units of the fee-ordered m
+1
From an incentive-compatible point of view, miners should be accepting
transactions that increase the amount of fees that can achieved with 4M weight
of transactions, so it seems like a pretty sane plan.
One common problem I've run into with RBF is since you're using RBF you
probably want t
Hi Rusty,
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:21 AM Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> The new "emergency RBF" rule:
>
> 6. If the original transaction was not in the first 4,000,000 weight
> units of the fee-ordered mempool and the replacement transaction i
I think this needs significantly improved motivation/description. A few areas
I'd like to see calculated out:
1) wrt rule 3, for this to be
obviously-incentive-compatible-for-the-next-miner, I'd think no evicted
transactions would be allowed to be in the next block range. This would
probably r
Hi all,
I want to propose a modification to rules 3, 4 and 5 of BIP 125:
To remind you of BIP 125:
3. The replacement transaction pays an absolute fee of at least the sum
paid by the original transactions.
4. The replacement transaction must also pay for its own bandwidth at
or
10 matches
Mail list logo
