Erik Aronesty [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2022-11-03 📝 Original message:actually, peter makes an ...

📅 Original date posted:2022-11-03
📝 Original message: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 non-mining users do nearly as much


On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 3:05 PM alicexbt via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> 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 doesn't take that much
> more
> > money to make a difference.
>
> I appreciate this effort and perhaps this was all that was needed in
> addition to Bitcoin Core's inclusion of full rbf support. Making it default
> right away or enabling preferential peering with service flag in a bitcoin
> core release was unnecessary.
>
> > If you'd like to donate to this effort, send BTC to
> > bc1qagmufdn6rf80kj3faw4d0pnhxyr47sevp3nj9m
>
> Sorry, I don't trust you based on some of the things you support on
> Twitter. Hopefully, others will donate and help this bounty.
>
> /dev/fd0
>
> Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
>
> ------- Original Message -------
> On Wednesday, November 2nd, 2022 at 2:56 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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
> > times of congestion. Miner and pool profit margins are pretty small, on
> the
> > order of $1k/block in many cases, so I know it doesn't take that much
> more
> > money to make a difference.
> >
> > Why should you do this? Full-RBF/zeroconf has been discussed to death.
> But
> > tl;dr: You'll earn more money, and help transition Bitcoin to a more
> secure
> > mempool policy based on economic incentives rather than trust.
> >
> >
> > If you're a miner and want to participate, the easiest way to so is to
> use the
> > mempoolfullrbf=1 option in the upcoming Bitcoin Core v24 release (eg the
> > 24.0rc3 tag), or use the mempoolreplacement=fee option in Bitcoin Knots.
> >
> > You can also just modify the code yourself by removing the opt-in RBF
> check.
> > For example against the v23.0 tag:
> >
> > $ git diff
> > diff --git a/src/validation.cpp b/src/validation.cpp
> > index 214112e2b..44c364623 100644
> > --- a/src/validation.cpp
> > +++ b/src/validation.cpp
> > @@ -736,7 +736,7 @@ bool MemPoolAccept::PreChecks(ATMPArgs& args,
> Workspace& ws)
> > // check all unconfirmed ancestors; otherwise an opt-in ancestor
> > // might be replaced, causing removal of this descendant.
> > if (!SignalsOptInRBF(*ptxConflicting)) {
> > - return state.Invalid(TxValidationResult::TX_MEMPOOL_POLICY,
> "txn-mempool-conflict");
> > + // return state.Invalid(TxValidationResult::TX_MEMPOOL_POLICY,
> "txn-mempool-conflict");
> > }
> >
> > ws.m_conflicts.insert(ptxConflicting->GetHash());
> >
> >
> > Once you've enabled full-RBF, you need a full-RBF peer. I'm running a
> few of
> > them:
> >
> > cup.nop.lol
> > mug.nop.lol
> > jar.nop.lol
> > jug.nop.lol
> >
> > These nodes run a preferential peering patch (
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25600)
> > to ensure that full-RBF nodes are interconnected to each other and
> replacements
> > can easily propagate. Also feel free to contact me if you'd like to peer
> with a
> > private node.
> >
> >
> > If you'd like to donate to this effort, send BTC to
> > bc1qagmufdn6rf80kj3faw4d0pnhxyr47sevp3nj9m
> >
> >
> > ...and yes, I'm well aware that miners could collect this bounty in
> other ways,
> > eg by raising minimum fees. Doing that also breaks zeroconf, so I'm not
> too
> > concerned.
> >
> > --
> > https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20221103/4eeed0c1/attachment.html>;