pull down to refresh
21 sats \ 14 replies \ @OT 3 Oct \ on: Sub 1s/vb transactions ideasfromtheedge
I think it was Floppydisk who said something like it makes it 10x cheaper to attack.
My understanding is that still if someone wants to spam the chain with sub 1 sat TX you can simply outbid them by paying 2 sats/vb.
In my ignorance, I don't see how it makes it cheaper to attack. If the attack is filling mempools with cheap transactions, the solution is paying more for your non-attack transactions.
if you used to have to pay a minimum of 1 sat/vB and the feerate is lowered, so now everyone is paying 0.1 sat/vB, but then attackers DoS mempools with lots of these transactions so you have to pay 1 sat/vB to get your transaction confirmed...nothing happened?
reply
reply
@murch pointed out one of the biggest effects:
I believe prior to this summer, most wallets implemented changes to fee rates in whole sat terms. So, if you wanted to fee bump your 1 sat/vB transaction, the wallet only let you choose 2 or more sats/vB.
As more wallets allow implement tooling for sub 1 sat/vB, you could conceivaly fee bump to 1.1 sats/vB.
This means miners may actually see a loss in revenue because fee rates may not escalate as quickly as they used to. (hopefully I'm recounting this correctly).
reply
Yes, good summary.
The
minRelayTxFee and incrementalRelayTxFee both express a minimum cost for relaying data across the network. It would be a bit odd to charge more for the first announcement of a transaction, but then make it cheaper to replace the transaction, or vice versa to make it cheap to make a first announcement and expensive to replace a transaction. So both mempool policies were lowered from 1 s/vB to 0.1 s/vB in Bitcoin Core 29.1 and the upcoming v30.0.reply
reply
Bitcoin Core 29.1 already makes up over 13% of the listening nodes according to Clark Moody’s dashboard:
As Laurent has recently demonstrated with his simulation, below 90% filters, almost all corresponding transactions reliably reach non-filtering listening nodes (which I suspect miners to be). So, at this point any listening nodes that want the low feerate transactions should be receiving them reliably before they appear in blocks.
reply
reply
cheaper to attack but also cheaper for transac, it depends on human action. One thing that is a problem is that bitcoin onchain is not being used much.
reply
reply
Why an exchange or ETF being hacked would increase fee rates?
reply
reply
Oh you mean a lot of people transacting at the same time, got it. But that's also a temporary problem and suply and demand for block space can be high or lower with more or less LN use also.
reply