On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 05:04:05PM +0100, 0xB10C via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> For further monitoring, I've set-up a mempoolfullrbf=1 node and are
> logging replacement events with [0]. I filter the full-RBF replacements
> and list the replaced and replacement transactions here:
>
On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 12:59:05PM +0100, 0xB10C wrote:
> On 12/9/22 22:16, Peter Todd wrote:
> >> For further monitoring, I've set-up a mempoolfullrbf=1 node and are
> >> logging replacement events with [0]. I filter the full-RBF replacements
> >> and list the replaced and replacement
On 12/9/22 22:16, Peter Todd wrote:
>> For further monitoring, I've set-up a mempoolfullrbf=1 node and are
>> logging replacement events with [0]. I filter the full-RBF replacements
>> and list the replaced and replacement transactions here:
> Question: are you taking any special steps to peer
On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 05:04:05PM +0100, 0xB10C via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Hi AJ and list,
>
> > This seems to be pretty good evidence that we currently don't have any
> > significant hashrate mining with fullrbf policies (<0.5% if there was a
> > high fee replacement available prior to every
Hi AJ and list,
> This seems to be pretty good evidence that we currently don't have any
> significant hashrate mining with fullrbf policies (<0.5% if there was a
> high fee replacement available prior to every block having been mined),
> despite the bounty having been collected.
For further
On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 3:58 PM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> note: if it was possible to enforce this, we wouldn't need proof of work
> at all. since it isn't possible, proof of work is strictly necessary.
>
If making empty statements were
On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 12:39:40AM -0500, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 10 or 20 nodes is completely meaningless. Pools run nodes themselves, which by
> default connect to 8 outgoing peers. There's about 5000 IPv4 listening nodes
> on
> the network. When a node learns of a new block, it
On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 09:20:58AM -0300, El_Hoy wrote:
> The only option I see against the attack Peter Todd is doing to opt-in RBF
> and 0Conf bitcoin usage is working on a bitcoin core implementation that
> stops propagation of full-rbf replaced blocks. Running multiple of such
> nodes on the
note: if it was possible to enforce this, we wouldn't need proof of work at
all. since it isn't possible, proof of work is strictly necessary.
On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 9:53 AM Rijndael via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Good morning,
>
> That sounds like a very
You are doing quite big claims without explaining those, let me add a few
questions inline:
On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 10:39 AM Greg Sanders wrote:
This will greatly centralize the network as well as not actually achieve
> the intended goal which is literally impossible.
>
Why would this
> That said, a sufficiently incentivized actor (like Daniel Lipshitz or Muun
> wallet developers) could work on a fork and run several nodes with such
> functionality.
Daniel Lipshitz has been working on BSV apparently [0] so I guess anything is
possible with him. But as others have said
Good morning,
That sounds like a very dangerous mode of operation. You can already hand a
transaction to a miner privately. I hand a transaction to a miner with some
reasonable fee, and then I go and broadcast a different transaction with a
minimal fee that spends the same inputs. The whole
This will greatly centralize the network as well as not actually achieve
the intended goal which is literally impossible.
On Mon, Dec 5, 2022, 8:27 AM El_Hoy via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> The only option I see against the attack Peter Todd is doing to opt-in
The only option I see against the attack Peter Todd is doing to opt-in RBF
and 0Conf bitcoin usage is working on a bitcoin core implementation that
stops propagation of full-rbf replaced blocks. Running multiple of such
nodes on the network will add a risk to miners that enable full-rbf that
would
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 03:36:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 01:16:13PM -0500, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > FYI I've gotten a few hundred dollars worth of donations to this effort, and
> > have raised the reward to about 0.02 BTC, or $400 USD at
On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 01:16:13PM -0500, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> FYI I've gotten a few hundred dollars worth of donations to this effort, and
> have raised the reward to about 0.02 BTC, or $400 USD at current prices.
Seems like this has been mostly claimed (0.014btc / $235,
technically, all we need is for *miners* to consistently mine "full
rbf"
There's another important point I think:
technically, all we need is for *miners* to consistently mine the
highest fee-rate transaction (or the one with the most incentive).
Miners could probably be incentivized to
On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 05:26:27AM -0400, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I'm now running a full-RBf bounty program for miners.
>
> tl;dr: I'm broadcasting full-RBF replacements paying extremely high fees to
> reward miners that turn on full-RBF. I'm starting small, just ~$100/block in
>
actually, peter makes an important point here
technically, all we need is for *miners* to consistently mine "full rbf"
as long as they do, businesses that accept 0conf will have to adjust their
risk accordingly, and the problem of misaligned incentives is resolved
i don't think it matters what
Hi Peter,
> tl;dr: I'm broadcasting full-RBF replacements paying extremely high fees to
> reward miners that turn on full-RBF. I'm starting small, just ~$100/block in
> times of congestion. Miner and pool profit margins are pretty small, on the
> order of $1k/block in many cases, so I know it
I'm now running a full-RBf bounty program for miners.
tl;dr: I'm broadcasting full-RBF replacements paying extremely high fees to
reward miners that turn on full-RBF. I'm starting small, just ~$100/block in
times of congestion. Miner and pool profit margins are pretty small, on the
order of
21 matches
Mail list logo
