Please let's at least have some civility and decorum on this list. On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:30 PM, <joli...@airmail.cc> wrote:
> You're the Chief Scientist of __ViaCoin__ a alt with 30 second blocks > and you have big banks as clients. Shit like replace-by-fee and leading > the anti-scaling mob is for your clients, not Bitcoin. Get the fuck out. > > Peter Todd - 8930511 Canada Ltd. > 1214-1423 Mississauga Valley Blvd. > Mississauga ON L5A 4A5 > Canada > > > https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=8930511 > > On 2015-05-26 00:10, Peter Todd wrote: > > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 12:03:09AM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote: > >> CPFP also solves it just fine. > > > > CPFP is a significantly more expensive way of paying fees than RBF, > > particularly for the use-case of defragmenting outputs, with cost > > savings ranging from 30% to 90% > > > > > > Case 1: CPFP vs. RBF for increasing the fee on a single tx > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Creating an spending a P2PKH output uses 34 bytes of txout, and 148 > > bytes of txin, 182 bytes total. > > > > Let's suppose I have a 1 BTC P2PKH output and I want to pay 0.1 BTC to > > Alice. This results in a 1in/2out transaction t1 that's 226 bytes in > > size. > > I forget to click on the "priority fee" option, so it goes out with the > > minimum fee of 2.26uBTC. Whoops! I use CPFP to spend that output, > > creating a new transaction t2 that's 192 bytes in size. I want to pay > > 1mBTC/KB for a fast confirmation, so I'm now paying 418uBTC of > > transaction fees. > > > > On the other hand, had I use RBF, my wallet would have simply > > rebroadcast t1 with the change address decreased. The rules require you > > to pay 2.26uBTC for the bandwidth consumed broadcasting it, plus the > > new > > fee level, or 218uBTC of fees in total. > > > > Cost savings: 48% > > > > > > Case 2: Paying multiple recipients in succession > > ------------------------------------------------ > > > > Suppose that after I pay Alice, I also decide to pay Bob for his hard > > work demonstrating cryptographic protocols. I need to create a new > > transaction t2 spending t1's change address. Normally t2 would be > > another 226 bytes in size, resulting in 226uBTC additional fees. > > > > With RBF on the other hand I can simply double-spend t1 with a > > transaction paying both Alice and Bob. This new transaction is 260 > > bytes > > in size. I have to pay 2.6uBTC additional fees to pay for the bandwidth > > consumed broadcasting it, resulting in an additional 36uBTC of fees. > > > > Cost savings: 84% > > > > > > Case 3: Paying multiple recipients from a 2-of-3 multisig wallet > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > The above situation gets even worse with multisig. t1 in the multisig > > case is 367 bytes; t2 another 367 bytes, costing an additional 367uBTC > > in fees. With RBF we rewrite t1 with an additional output, resulting in > > a 399 byte transaction, with just 36uBTC in additional fees. > > > > Cost savings: 90% > > > > > > Case 4: Dust defragmentation > > ---------------------------- > > > > My wallet has a two transaction outputs that it wants to combine into > > one for the purpose of UTXO defragmentation. It broadcasts transaction > > t1 with two inputs and one output, size 340 bytes, paying zero fees. > > > > Prior to the transaction confirming I find I need to spend those funds > > for a priority transaction at the 1mBTC/KB fee level. This transaction, > > t2a, has one input and two outputs, 226 bytes in size. However it needs > > to pay fees for both transactions at once, resulting in a combined > > total > > fee of 556uBTC. If this situation happens frequently, defragmenting > > UTXOs is likely to cost more in additional fees than it saves. > > > > With RBF I'd simply doublespend t1 with a 2-in-2-out transaction 374 > > bytes in size, paying 374uBTC. Even better, if one of the two inputs is > > sufficiently large to cover my costs I can doublespend t1 with a > > 1-in-2-out tx just 226 bytes in size, paying 226uBTC. > > > > Cost savings: 32% to 59%, or even infinite if defragmentation w/o RBF > > costs you more than you save > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > One dashboard for servers and applications across > > Physical-Virtual-Cloud > > Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications > > Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable > > Insights > > Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. > > http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Bitcoin-development mailing list > > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
