Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

New BIP: Logarithm of transaction fee limits block size #774

Open
wants to merge 35 commits into
base: master
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@simondev1
Copy link

simondev1 commented Mar 28, 2019

No description provided.

simondev1 added some commits Mar 28, 2019

@luke-jr luke-jr changed the title BIP323: Logarithm of transaction fee limits block size New BIP: Logarithm of transaction fee limits block size Mar 29, 2019

@luke-jr

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

luke-jr commented Mar 29, 2019

This is NOT BIP 323!

@luke-jr luke-jr added the New BIP label Mar 29, 2019

@luke-jr

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

luke-jr commented Mar 29, 2019

What is the subject of the bitcoin-dev mailing list discussion of this proposal?

Technical soundness: What prevents miners from providing inputs to coinjoin with for fake fees?

Backward compatibility: Talks about a hardfork if "everything applied", but I don't see that in the specification.

simondev1 added some commits Mar 29, 2019

@simondev1

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

simondev1 commented Mar 29, 2019

Changed to BIP-XXXX

Mailing List: Not yet sent. I just subscribed to the mailing list. Will do that the next few days.

Technical soundness: The same thing that prevents that today. (Not exactly sure though what you meant.) The incentive of miners is to fill the block only with transactions of largest fees, same as today, there is no incentive to put 1sat/byte transaction into the chain when the block can be filled with 30sat/byte transactions.

Backward compatibility: Improved Text

@luke-jr

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

luke-jr commented Mar 29, 2019

Mailing List: For the future, please see BIP 2 - mailing list discussion comes before opening a PR or asking for a number assignment.

Technical soundness: Today, fees are not used in any consensus-critical checks, other than to allow the miner to claim them and no higher amount. So a miner giving himself a fee is simply a wash. With your proposal, however, miners now can game this new algorithm by giving themselves fees in others' transactions.

@luke-jr

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

luke-jr commented Mar 29, 2019

(BTW, it's unclear how this works since there is not currently a block size limit, but only a block weight limit. eg, does your algorithm enforce against weight or size?)

@simondev1

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

simondev1 commented Mar 29, 2019

Fees come out of unspent satoshis in transactions. A miner cannot just increase fees of a transaction. Such a changed transaction would not be signed correctly. There is no change regarding this.

@luke-jr

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

luke-jr commented Mar 29, 2019

They can with cooperation of the transaction sender(s) using a CoinJoin.

@simondev1

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

simondev1 commented Mar 29, 2019

Block weight vs block size: This is a good question. Some developer more familiar with this should decide that.

CoinJoin is not affected by this BIP. CoinJoin is just a transaction with a known fee. See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/CoinJoin

@luke-jr

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

luke-jr commented Mar 29, 2019

But CoinJoins do break the assumptions of this BIP (that the fee amount can be known reliably).

simondev1 added some commits Apr 4, 2019

@simondev1

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

simondev1 commented Apr 13, 2019

Mailing list subject: "new BIP: Self balancing between excessively low/high fees and block size" See April thread

CoinJoin: That's not the case. CoinJoin is not affected by this BIP. (We do not need know what CoinJoin user payed what part of the fee. But we know exactly the total fee of the transaction just like any normal transaction.)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.