That's pretty easy to quantify. I wrote a quick script to grab the last few blocks, and then shuffle the inputs/outputs before testing if each transaction is bip69 or not.
The result was 42% of all transactions would accidentally be bip69 when randomized. So clearly randomization is a lot more popular than bip69 at the moment, but I'm not sure that it matters much. As soon as you have more than a few inputs/outputs, you can tell with a high confidence if the transaction is bip69 or not. And of course if you're clustering a wallet, you can figure out extremely easily how that wallet behaves wrt bip6. -Ryan ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 9:12 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 3:52 PM Chris Belcher via bitcoin-dev > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: > > > Thanks for bringing our attention to this important topic. > > According to (https://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/bip-69-stats) around 60% of > > transaction follow bip69 (possibly just by chance). > > A two input randomly ordered transaction has a 50% chance of > 'following' bip-69. So 60% sound like a small minority. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev