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

Newsletters: add 2018-07-10 #14

Merged
merged 6 commits into from Jul 10, 2018
Merged

Conversation

@harding
Copy link
Contributor

@harding harding commented Jul 8, 2018

No description provided.

@harding
Copy link
Contributor Author

@harding harding commented Jul 8, 2018

Note: I checked the "allow edits from maintainers" box, so anyone with commit access should be able to push changes directly to https://github.com/harding/bitcoinops.github.io/tree/2018-07-10-newsletter

Note that multiple people pushing to the same branch can get hairy fast. If you have to force-push, it's recommended to use --force-with-lease to avoid overwriting work pushed to a branch since the last time you pulled from it.

lang: en
version: 1
---
## Welcome
Copy link
Contributor

@jnewbery jnewbery Jul 9, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I suggest we remove the welcome / optech workshop sections.

block efficiency for your node.

minrelaytxfee=0.00001000
incrementalrelayfee=0.00001000
Copy link
Contributor

@jnewbery jnewbery Jul 9, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think only minrelaytxfee needs to be set. incrementalrelayfee is for BIP125 replacement deltas.

This didn't cause significant problems when fee estimates were high,
but now that fee estimates are near the default minimum relay fee of
1 satoshi per byte, any transactions created with a fee slightly
below that aren't being relayed to miners and so remain unconfirmed
Copy link
Contributor

@jnewbery jnewbery Jul 9, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Changing aren't being to may not be, since transactions may be relayed depending on node policy.

@jnewbery
Copy link
Contributor

@jnewbery jnewbery commented Jul 9, 2018

I've added some commits:

  • jnewbery fixups is fixups. The only thing I'm not sure about is the stuff about incrementalrelayfee.
  • Add Building on Bitcoin talks adds some content around the Building on Bitcoin talks.
  • Add intro adds a short intro.

@harding @moneyball - I'd appreciate some review before I send this out tomorrow if possible.

single-sig and increasing their privacy by making multisig look like
single-sig. However, the scheme requires multistep interaction
between the wallets participating in the multisig, both for creating
the public key and the signature.
Copy link
Contributor

@jamesob jamesob Jul 9, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Non-blocking, but it may be worth noting that this functionality creates huge fee incentives for exchanges et al to start batching withdrawals.

Copy link
Contributor

@jamesob jamesob Jul 9, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah nevermind - this isn't actually the case (as you mention below) because we're still unable to aggregate a signature across inputs within a txn.

(services that wait for something to happen in real life, like which
team wins the world cup, and then provide a signature committing to
that outcome, e.g. allowing Alice and Bob to settle a bet onchain or
in a LN channel). Many of these cases also improve efficiency
Copy link
Contributor

@jamesob jamesob Jul 9, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Worth linking to the DLC paper (https://adiabat.github.io/dlc.pdf)?

@jamesob
Copy link
Contributor

@jamesob jamesob commented Jul 9, 2018

Another great newsletter! Really nice job, @harding @jnewbery.

exposes you to bandwidth-wasting attacks and reduces BIP152 compact
block efficiency for your node.

minrelaytxfee=0.00001000
incrementalrelayfee=0.00001000
Copy link
Contributor Author

@harding harding Jul 9, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this is wrong, the actual minimum feerate is the greater of those two settings. Consider the return for GetMinFee():

return std::max(CFeeRate(llround(rollingMinimumFeeRate)), incrementalRelayFee);

Also, the reason I think this is wrong is because I tried setting minrelaytxfee below the minimum on my node a few months ago and, after a day, I observed that I had no below-default-fee transactions. So I poked around and added incrementalrelayfee with the same setting, and within minutes started to receive below default-min transactions. Feel free to try the same experiment yourself.

Copy link
Contributor

@jnewbery jnewbery Jul 9, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

hmmm, yes it looks like you're right, but I can't understand why that code is like that. I think it effectively makes incrementalrelayfee a floor for the minrelaytxfee.

It was changed here: bitcoin/bitcoin@7b1add3#diff-ca74c4b28865382863b8fe7633a85cd6R1084

I'm going to investigate whether that change was intentional. For now, I'll revert the newsletter to your version since that's the current behaviour.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@harding harding left a comment

I think this comment needs to be addressed: #14 (review)

Otherwise, edits through to eaeb29d LGTM with some fix-if-you-want nitpicks.

- [**Merchant adoption**][bitrefill video] - [Sergej Kotliar][sergej], CEO of
Bitrefill gave a personal account of the fee market spike at the end of last
year, important UX considerations for Bitcoin and and lightning payments, and
Bitrefill's experiences in integrating lightning. I found this talk
Copy link
Contributor Author

@harding harding Jul 9, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe clarify who "I" is here (maybe in the section introduction), or since there don't seem to be any other personal pronouns in this section, revise it out.

Copy link
Contributor

@jnewbery jnewbery Jul 9, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, you're right - will remove personal pronoun

[patricia]: https://twitter.com/patestevao

- [**Blind Signatures in Sciptless Scripts**][blind signatures video] -
[Jonas Nick][jonas] spoke about using schnorr signatures as the basis
Copy link
Contributor Author

@harding harding Jul 9, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think I used uppercase "Schnorr" in the earlier section about Wuille's proposed BIP, but this is lowercase. They should probably be consistently capitalized (I don't have a preference).

Copy link
Contributor

@jnewbery jnewbery Jul 9, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Will capitalize

This week's newsletter includes news and action items about minimum fees and
the upcoming Bitcoin Core release, a special feature on a Schnorr signature
proposal, and a write-up of the recent Building on Bitcoin conference in
Lisbon. *Divertam-se!*
Copy link
Contributor Author

@harding harding Jul 9, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I had to Google "Divertam-se", which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it feels not quite right to me. Up to you if you want to keep it.

Copy link
Contributor

@jnewbery jnewbery Jul 9, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You don't speak Portuguese? ;)

Will remove.

@jnewbery jnewbery force-pushed the 2018-07-10-newsletter branch from eaeb29d to 0abdc42 Jul 9, 2018
@jnewbery
Copy link
Contributor

@jnewbery jnewbery commented Jul 9, 2018

Fixed @harding's comments.

Will merge tomorrow and send the newsletter out in the morning. Thanks all!


- [**Merchant adoption**][bitrefill video] - [Sergej Kotliar][sergej], CEO of
Bitrefill gave a personal account of the fee market spike at the end of last
year, important UX considerations for Bitcoin and and lightning payments, and
Copy link
Contributor

@moneyball moneyball Jul 9, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"and and" typo

Also there are several spellings of Lightning with a lower case l.

Copy link
Contributor

@moneyball moneyball Jul 9, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

FYI I attempted to make these changes myself in the GitHub editor, but I get a 404 when trying to create a PR...

@harding
Copy link
Contributor Author

@harding harding commented Jul 10, 2018

Made edits suggested by @jamesob and @moneyball. Also gave it a final proofread on a local preview. Thanks!

@jnewbery jnewbery merged commit 83c5c62 into bitcoinops:master Jul 10, 2018
@jnewbery
Copy link
Contributor

@jnewbery jnewbery commented Jul 10, 2018

Merged. Thanks all!

harding referenced this issue in harding/bitcoinops.github.io Sep 24, 2018
jnewbery added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 25, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants