Call for nodes reconfiguration: minrelaytxfee=0.00000001 \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

Call for nodes reconfiguration: minrelaytxfee=0.00000001

244 sats \ 19 comments \ @gregtonoski 31 Jan bitcoin_Mining

The minrelaytxfee default value of 1000/kvB (1 sat/vbyte) has been set in Bitcoin nodes since 2013 or earlier. In 2013, 1000 sats were priced at $0.01, today it is about 100 times more. Wouldn't you like to consider adjusting your node configuration and lower the hurdle, perhaps? I would suggest setting minrelaytxfee=0.00000001 (which translates to 0.001 sat/vbyte) as a rule of thumb. The value is set in a bitcoin.conf file. There is negligible number of such reconfigured nodes relaying transactions with fee-rates below 1 sat/vbyte currently.

There is the intention to unblock transactions with fee-rate below 1 sat/vbyte in Bitcoin. Probably consolidation and multisig types of transactions would benefit the most.

view all related items

259 sats \ 1 reply \ @nullcount 31 Jan

Imagine the utility of making many dust utxos spendable again! I think an altruistic mining pool should emerge (maybe call it VacuumPool or SweepPool) that only includes small feerate txns.

Would be a nice gesture to help reduce the size of the UTXO set for all nodes.

We already have pools that enforce OFAC sanctions "for the greater good" so it isn't that much of a leap to suggest taking a pay-cut to make the BTC you want to see in the world.

Or maybe regular pools switch their template to target low fees for a fay. Make it a holiday

40 sats \ 0 replies \ @Murch 31 Jan

The utility of making many dust UTXOs spendable again also makes it much cheaper to create more dust UTXOs.

5 sats \ 0 replies \ @SwapMarket 31 Jan

That will cause your transactions fail to reach the miners. Until they start accepting below 1 s/vb, we better wait.

6 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 31 Jan

21 sats \ 4 replies \ @Murch 31 Jan

I am not sure I see the point of doing this while miners apparently do not consider including transactions below the minimum transaction relay feerate of 1 ṩ/vB: we do see a bunch of transactions with feerates below 1 ṩ/vB bumbling around in mempools that accept them, but as far as I am aware, no miner has included any significant amount of them in blocks even if their blocks then were not full.

As long as there are no miners including them, you are just wasting bandwidth.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @gregtonoski OP 31 Jan

Miners are of tertiary importance here (if any). The setting is applied by node runners and affects nodes in the first place.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Murch 31 Jan

What use is it to learn about transactions that never get confirmed?

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @gregtonoski OP 31 Jan

The assumption that a transaction would have never got confirmed is incorrect.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Murch 8h

Prove it by showing me a single block whose tail end is composed of transactions paying less than minRelayTxFeerate.

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @gregtonoski OP 31 Jan

As a side note, consider also setting incrementalrelayfee=0 instead of the default 3000 in order to relay replacement transactions which fee-rates don't change.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Murch 31 Jan

Imagine every node operator adopts that policy. What sort of consequences would you expect of making it free to send any amount of data to all bitcoin nodes?

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @gregtonoski OP 31 Jan

It wouldn't cause "it free to send any amount of data to all bitcoin nodes". Let's not exaggerate.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Murch 31 Jan

Accepting replacements that do not pay a higher feerate than the original means that the sender paid nothing for the relay of additional data.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @gregtonoski OP 31 Jan

That's not true. It means that the sender paid for the extra bytes at the same fee-rate.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Murch 8h

Let’s say I send a 200 vbyte transaction with a fee of 200 sats. Then I get to send a replacement for that transaction that is also 200 vbytes and pays 200 sats.

How much did my second transaction increase the available fees in the mempool? Zilch.

Ergo, the relay of my second transaction was free, and I can repeat that until one of my transactions gets confirmed.

reply on another page

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @tomlaies 31 Jan

1 sat/vbyte is a clean and round number. What would less than 1 sat even mean? What's when you use an odd number of vbytes? Buy more unused vbytes to fill out a whole sat? or round the fees up/down? ceiling? Is there even pricing pressure here, do miners want to sell block space for less?

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @gregtonoski OP 31 Jan

Transaction fee is quoted in natural numbers, e.g. 97 sats for a transaction. A fee-rate sat/vbyte is derivative and doesn't exist on the chain. There isn't any rounding problem.

40 sats \ 1 reply \ @tomlaies 31 Jan

Just because something is derivative doesn't make it not not real.

At some point the price for 97vbytes and for 98vbytes would cost the same price. Alas, this isn't a "problem" per se but what would that look like tho.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nullcount 31 Jan

At some point (a pair of distinct fee rates) the price for N bytes and M bytes can cost the same price.

Example:

Tx_A is 1,000 bytes pays 1sat/byte Tx_B is 500 bytes pays 2sat/byte

Both cost 1,000 sats

I suppose your example for 97/98 bytes would look similar.