Re: [Bitcoin-development] Cost savings by using replace-by-fee, 30-90%
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
Re: [Bitcoin-development] alternate proposal opt-in miner takes double-spend (Re: replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4)
On 2015-02-22 14:33, Peter Todd wrote: > On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 02:11:31PM +, Adam Back wrote: >> My actual point outside of the emotive stuff (and I should've stayed >> away from that too) is how about we explore ways to improve practical >> security of fast confirmation transactions, and if we find something >> better, then we can help people migrate to that before deprecating the >> current weaker 0-conf transactions. >> >> If I understand this is also your own motivation. > > Indeed, which is why I wrote some easy-to-use and highly effective > tools > to pull off double-spends and made sure to publicise them and their > effectiveness widely. They've had their desired effect and very few > people are relying on unconfirmed transactions anymore. You mean you wrote a bunch of FUD about zeroconf transactions while working for companies like Coinbase and GreenAddress that were trying to sell 100% centralized solutions? Lets just be clear on this. I and many other people tried your replace-by-fee tools and found out that they worked **maybe** 1-2% of the time. You claimed 95% success rates. > As for the > remaining, next week alone I'll be volunteering one or two hours of my > consulting time to discuss solutions with a team doing person-to-person > trading for instance. A "team" You mean a **Company**? We don't need yet another 100% centralized LocalBitcoins snooping on our transactions. -- Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & more Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=190641631&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] On Rewriting Bitcoin (was Re: [Libbitcoin] Satoshi client: is a fork past 0.10 possible?)
On 2015-02-15 17:13, Tamas Blummer wrote: > On Feb 15, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > >> Yes you are dicking around. > > I thought I was clear, that I am using Bitcoin Core as border router > talking to its P2P interface. > > The reimplementation of consensus code helped me to deeply understand > the protocol, aids debugging > and now comes handy to create a side chain. > >> Don't assume your prior experience with other commercial projects > > Acquire some before you claim its useless. ^^^ THIS ^^^ Can we recognize Peter Todd's lack of respect and outright unprofesionalism here? Peter: Someone so young with so little actual experience shouldn't be going around so casually bad-mouthing the work of others or dismissing people with decades more experience than you. Don't write long angry rants against the ideas of others when you haven't even read what they have to say. Own up to it when you get caught doing it. You'll find out the hard way that blackmailing people, even your clients, into using your ideas may get you attention, but it'll make you a pariah in the long run. (does encouraging illegal fraud belong on this mailing list?) Remember that twitter is public. Do you really want future employers reading jokes about pedophilia and rape? Do you want to be known for snappy one liners and giving journalists headlines or writing solid code that gets used by real businesses? (not "DarkLeaks") Are you trying to be a rock star or team member? -- Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] The relationship between Proof-of-Publication and Anti-Replay Oracles
On 2014-12-22 00:11, Peter Todd wrote: > On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 09:48:01AM -0500, Peter Todd wrote: > The classic "proof-of-publication" system is to embed opaque data (as > far as bitcoin miners are concerned) in transactions using OP_RETURN. > A significance of establishing "proof-of-publication" as a universal > underlying primitive is that this OP_RETURN trick is then sufficient > for anything you might want. But part of what Bitcoin provides is > indexing and validation/exclusion, and this is important for > supporting efficient anti-replay proofs. Proof-of-(non)-publication > alone isn't sufficient for this. Are we going to get an answer to this or Adam Back's critique? Doesn't sound like this so-called "proof-of-publication" actually works according to the experts. Is it an concept anyone but Peter Todd actually believes in? -- Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
