pull down to refresh

21 sats \ 6 replies \ @Scoresby 3 Oct \ parent \ on: Sub 1s/vb transactions ideasfromtheedge
@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).
write
preview
102 sats \ 0 replies \ @Murch 3 Oct
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
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @OT 3 Oct
I remember hearing that pleb nodes are rejecting a lot of these TX as they still have the default 1sat/vb minimum. I guess since they have swamped the mempool that they eventually get relayed to most mining pools and into a block.
reply
102 sats \ 0 replies \ @Murch 3 Oct
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
50 sats \ 2 replies \ @Scoresby 3 Oct
Miners are already mining blocks with average fee rates that are sub 1 sat/VB transactions in something close to half the blocks. (Although past couple weeks not as much maybe)
reply
202 sats \ 1 reply \ @Murch 3 Oct
The recent blocks were including fewer transactions below 1 s/vB, because enough transactions were bidding more than 1 s/vB:
Chart: last 24h, inverted feerate (highest feerate at the bottom), only txs offering 1 s/vB or more.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 3 Oct
Markets at work! Thanks for these replies.
reply