> I'd suggest doing that right now, without waiting for the patch to get merged, > as it improves the politics of getting the patch merged. Miners tend to run > customized bitcoind's anyway.
Philosophically, I think we're better off arguing code patches free from a political framework and rather reasoning from scientific or engineering principles. If a change is adopted it should be in the name of making the whole system better, making the new situation a win-win game. That said, and more pragmatically, now that the full-rbf patch is merged in Core there is the pedagogical work of explaining the fee upsides of turning on full-rbf setting to enough miners. AFAIK, we don't have public, broadcast-all communication channels between developers and mining operators to exchange on software upgrades (e.g Stratum V2). I think I'm left with the process of reaching out to miner one by one. Le jeu. 23 juin 2022 à 20:13, Peter Todd <p...@petertodd.org> a écrit : > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 07:45:48PM -0400, Antoine Riard wrote: > > > BTW I changed one of my OTS calendars to issue fee-bumping txs without > the > > > opt-in RBF flag set as an experiment. I also made sure txs would > > propagate to > > > the above node. As of right now, it's up to 32 replacements (once per > > block), > > > without any of them mined; the calendars use the strategy of starting > at > > the > > > minimum possible fee, and bumping the fee up every time a new block > > arrives > > > without the tx getting mined. So that's evidence we don't have much > > full-rbf > > > hash power at this moment. > > > > > > You can see the current status at: > > https://alice.btc.calendar.opentimestamps.org/ > > > > That's interesting. I'm not sure if we can conclude of the absence of > > full-rbf hash power at this moment, as it could also be a lack of > full-rbf > > propagation path towards such potential hash power. I think the day we > see > > an opt-out replacement transaction mined, it would constitute a good hint > > of full-rbf hash power (assuming the tx-relay topology stays relatively > > stable across the transaction issuance...) > > Fees are relatively low right now, so there could be 1% or so of full-rbf > hash > power and I wouldn't notice with this particular technique as the initial > tx > gets mined within 10-20 blocks; a few years back similar experiments were > finding a few percentage points of hashing power running full-rbf. > > > Anyway, if/when the `fullrbf` patch lands in Bitcoin Core, including > > automatic outbound connections to few `NODE_REPLACE_BY_FEE` peers, I'm > > thinking of reaching out to a few mining node operators to advocate them > > with the new policy setting. > > I'd suggest doing that right now, without waiting for the patch to get > merged, > as it improves the politics of getting the patch merged. Miners tend to run > customized bitcoind's anyway. > > -- > https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
