1 2015-12-12T00:00:16  <zookolaptop> Makes sense. Also I'll bet there are quantization effects and "economies of scale" more locally, too, e.g. bufferbloat.
  2 2015-12-12T00:00:54  <gmaxwell> well mining inequality of delay throws this all out.
  3 2015-12-12T00:01:54  * zookolaptop squints.
  4 2015-12-12T00:01:55  <zookolaptop> What's that?
  5 2015-12-12T00:03:24  <gmaxwell> zookolaptop: e.g. if a miner is a super majority hashpower they don't ever have to get orphaned; so there is little to harm in terms of orphaning to make blocks as big as they want.
  6 2015-12-12T00:03:59  <gmaxwell> In any case, formula for marginal feerate in order to overcome subsidy loss; there are an infinite number of tiny miners who all have the same constant and size sensitive delays is (41.6623*e^(((-0.00166649*size)/bytes_per_sec)-0.00166649*delay_sec))/bytes_per_sec    (this is just the derivative of the orphaning cost for a given size/delay/bandwidth assuming 600s blocks)
  7 2015-12-12T00:04:22  *** amiller has quit IRC
  8 2015-12-12T00:07:21  <gmaxwell> (thats for btc per 1000 bytes, which is usually the unit we use for fees)
  9 2015-12-12T00:08:03  <gmaxwell> For 2.491s/90415 bytes/s which were the straum observed measurements; this function is nearly linear in the domain 0-1mb, 0.0004588 to 0.000450 BTC/kb.
 10 2015-12-12T00:09:09  <gmaxwell> so the irritating thing here is that the negative slope is opposite of what a stable control law needs here. So I think effort to make the behavior sensible needs to just abandon being rationally optimizing; at least for right now.
 11 2015-12-12T00:13:03  <zookolaptop> I don't know what that function looks like.
 12 2015-12-12T00:13:06  <zookolaptop> I can't graph that function in my head.
 13 2015-12-12T00:13:09  <zookolaptop> And see the slope you mean.
 14 2015-12-12T00:13:23  *** ParadoxSpiral_ has quit IRC
 15 2015-12-12T00:15:16  *** bawong has quit IRC
 16 2015-12-12T00:15:38  <zookolaptop> And I don't know about the straum observed measurements, but I'm very glad to hear there were empirical measurements,
 17 2015-12-12T00:15:55  <zookolaptop> and I conclude from theexample numbers--0.0004588 BTC/kb--that nobody cares about this. :-)
 18 2015-12-12T00:16:02  <zookolaptop> Because that's too little to care about.
 19 2015-12-12T00:16:56  *** bitdevsnyc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 20 2015-12-12T00:17:50  <zookolaptop> Do you disagree?
 21 2015-12-12T00:18:31  <gmaxwell> over 0-1mb it looks like a straight line.   Overall it looks like e^(-x).  (starts out high, goes down)
 22 2015-12-12T00:18:31  <zookolaptop> I think my conclusion then is the same as yours: bounded rationality here, or at least "Zooko's estimation of likely behavior of near-future miners", is to ignore the fees.
 23 2015-12-12T00:18:51  <gmaxwell> zookolaptop: yes/no.  It's actually considerably higher than gees being paid right now.
 24 2015-12-12T00:18:53  <zookolaptop> Ok.
 25 2015-12-12T00:19:49  <zookolaptop> Oh, it works out to about 0.45 BTC for a full 1 MB block?
 26 2015-12-12T00:20:12  *** amiller has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 27 2015-12-12T00:20:15  <gmaxwell> Yes.
 28 2015-12-12T00:20:23  <zookolaptop> That's 2% of current reward, instead of the 1% that I estimated from empirical measurements above.
 29 2015-12-12T00:20:55  <zookolaptop> So... I'm *fairly* sure that still most miners don't care? But then we get to the next reward halving, in which case this gets to be 4%?
 30 2015-12-12T00:21:06  <gmaxwell> Yes.
 31 2015-12-12T00:21:15  <zookolaptop> Hm.
 32 2015-12-12T00:21:46  <gmaxwell> I think the fact that miners haven't all gone and computed this themselves and set their minfee higher suggests we still don't _currently_ need to worry that much about short term rational behavior for most miners.
 33 2015-12-12T00:22:33  <zookolaptop> Right, and I my only modification to that point is to argue that not doing this is rational for them.
 34 2015-12-12T00:22:51  <zookolaptop> Because tweaking a config param in their system endangers their operations, which could suddenly cost them $30K/day if it goes wrong,
 35 2015-12-12T00:23:05  <zookolaptop> and the best possible outcome they could get from the "rational" tweak you propose is, like, $50/day or so ?
 36 2015-12-12T00:23:14  <gmaxwell> And many other effects too.  Of course, all thats fragile, e.g. someone publishes another version.
 37 2015-12-12T00:23:34  <zookolaptop> And because whoever is focusing their attention on that tweaking should probably get to work and optimize what really matters: reducing costs so that more of the $30K/day revenue is margin instead of lost!
 38 2015-12-12T00:24:09  <zookolaptop> It's too bad you weren't in Hong Kong. The miners panel was awesome.
 39 2015-12-12T00:24:11  <zookolaptop> amiller: same to you!
 40 2015-12-12T00:25:19  <gmaxwell> zookolaptop: well thats part of the tradeoff I'm talking about. The reason that 0.0004etc is the lowest they really should accept is because lower than that increases the odds they lose the 25 BTC subsidy, by more than the fees gained.
 41 2015-12-12T00:25:52  <gmaxwell> In any case I brought that threshold amount as only a point that limiting ourself strictly to short term income maximizing behavior isn't necessary.
 42 2015-12-12T00:26:06  <zookolaptop> Um, isn't that an argument that tweaking this config could improve profit by *more* than $50/day ?
 43 2015-12-12T00:26:21  <zookolaptop> Okay, I accept your point.
 44 2015-12-12T00:27:39  <gmaxwell> And it's not good; because the current "sort by fees, take the target_size off the top"  encourages dumb behavior by the users:  You should gamble if the target is going to be met, pay very low amounts (just enough to get relayed) ... and then be shocked-shocked! when the target gets met and the system is operating in an totally different region of behavior.
 45 2015-12-12T00:28:02  <gmaxwell> esp since the random block finding makes the fullness at any instant pretty unpredictable.
 46 2015-12-12T00:29:08  <gmaxwell> and also undermines the utility of fee as an anti-spam, e.g. someone keeps a huge backlog of junk and any time some blocks are found in quick succession, miners are dipping into transactions that paid almost nothing.
 47 2015-12-12T00:31:27  <zookolaptop> Sounds reasonable.
 48 2015-12-12T00:31:40  <zookolaptop> So, under the assumptions laid out above, is there a nice simple alternative?
 49 2015-12-12T00:31:59  <zookolaptop> The goals would be: 1. not so bad for miners that they choose to diverge from it, in the short term
 50 2015-12-12T00:32:04  <zookolaptop> which as discussed should be easy to meet.
 51 2015-12-12T00:32:10  <zookolaptop> 2. Predictable behavior for users ?
 52 2015-12-12T00:33:27  <gmaxwell> So what bitcoin did pre-2012 was more reasonable; in the sense that it provided gradual back pressure, but it depended on future state and it was strangely order dependant.  (e.g. first txn into a block could go in with low fees, then higher paying things were excluded later).
 53 2015-12-12T00:35:55  <zookolaptop> *nod*
 54 2015-12-12T00:36:49  <gmaxwell> perhaps something as simple as having a target-size; sorting blocks by their feerate, and keeping a moving average of the rate at the target size; and using some function of that as a threshold for mining.
 55 2015-12-12T00:38:02  <gmaxwell> so even if there is a fast run of blocks, it won't mine a bunch of spam... and if it takes a long time between blocks, it'll just produce a larger block.
 56 2015-12-12T00:39:50  <zookolaptop> Target blocksize?
 57 2015-12-12T00:40:03  <zookolaptop> Moving average of fees from recent blocks ?
 58 2015-12-12T01:02:59  *** davec has quit IRC
 59 2015-12-12T01:03:36  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 60 2015-12-12T01:05:52  *** bitdevsn_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 61 2015-12-12T01:07:06  *** bitdevsnyc has quit IRC
 62 2015-12-12T01:13:39  *** Tera2342 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 63 2015-12-12T01:24:44  *** paulbernard has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 64 2015-12-12T01:49:37  *** zookolaptop has quit IRC
 65 2015-12-12T01:52:31  *** zookolaptop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 66 2015-12-12T02:08:13  *** zookolaptop has quit IRC
 67 2015-12-12T02:11:20  <GitHub130> [bitcoin] accraze opened pull request #7200: Checks for null data transaction before issuing error to debug.log (master...null-tx-debug) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7200
 68 2015-12-12T02:11:28  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
 69 2015-12-12T02:12:58  *** bitdevsnyc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 70 2015-12-12T02:15:35  *** instagibbs has quit IRC
 71 2015-12-12T02:16:52  *** bitdevsn_ has quit IRC
 72 2015-12-12T02:18:04  *** zookolaptop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 73 2015-12-12T02:24:59  *** Tera2342 has quit IRC
 74 2015-12-12T02:34:13  *** zookolaptop has quit IRC
 75 2015-12-12T02:34:39  *** raedah has quit IRC
 76 2015-12-12T02:37:57  *** tripleslash has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 77 2015-12-12T02:50:52  *** jannes has quit IRC
 78 2015-12-12T02:58:13  *** bitdevsnyc has quit IRC
 79 2015-12-12T03:19:45  *** bawong has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 80 2015-12-12T03:24:35  *** jl2012 has quit IRC
 81 2015-12-12T03:33:10  <btcdrak> gmaxwell: that's a pretty interesting conversation regarding fees.
 82 2015-12-12T03:49:45  *** belcher has quit IRC
 83 2015-12-12T04:11:40  *** jl2012 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 84 2015-12-12T04:29:43  <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: supporting that has been one of my goals with trying to rework the mining code (but as one of many possible options)
 85 2015-12-12T05:10:39  *** spqr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 86 2015-12-12T05:10:44  <spqr> hello
 87 2015-12-12T05:41:26  *** spqr has quit IRC
 88 2015-12-12T05:59:51  *** droark has quit IRC
 89 2015-12-12T07:36:28  *** bawong has quit IRC
 90 2015-12-12T07:53:44  *** jcorgan is now known as jcorgan|away
 91 2015-12-12T08:47:57  *** tulip has quit IRC
 92 2015-12-12T09:05:46  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 93 2015-12-12T09:27:56  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 94 2015-12-12T09:38:56  *** jtimon has quit IRC
 95 2015-12-12T09:52:58  *** Tera2342 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 96 2015-12-12T09:55:08  *** Thireus has quit IRC
 97 2015-12-12T09:56:56  *** ParadoxSpiral has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 98 2015-12-12T09:58:57  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 99 2015-12-12T10:09:26  *** kanzure_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
100 2015-12-12T10:10:15  *** xiangfu_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
101 2015-12-12T10:10:57  *** evoskuil has quit IRC
102 2015-12-12T10:10:57  *** ParadoxSpiral has quit IRC
103 2015-12-12T10:10:58  *** BlueMatt has quit IRC
104 2015-12-12T10:10:58  *** Thireus has quit IRC
105 2015-12-12T10:10:58  *** davec has quit IRC
106 2015-12-12T10:10:58  *** kanzure has quit IRC
107 2015-12-12T10:10:59  *** xiangfu has quit IRC
108 2015-12-12T10:10:59  *** harding has quit IRC
109 2015-12-12T10:10:59  *** harding has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
110 2015-12-12T10:11:00  *** evoskuil has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
111 2015-12-12T10:11:00  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
112 2015-12-12T10:11:19  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
113 2015-12-12T10:12:25  *** ParadoxSpiral has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
114 2015-12-12T10:12:46  *** BlueMatt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
115 2015-12-12T10:14:10  *** arowser has quit IRC
116 2015-12-12T10:14:33  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
117 2015-12-12T10:16:58  *** harding_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
118 2015-12-12T10:17:52  *** davec_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
119 2015-12-12T10:18:36  *** evoskuil has quit IRC
120 2015-12-12T10:18:36  *** harding has quit IRC
121 2015-12-12T10:18:37  *** evoskuil has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
122 2015-12-12T10:18:37  *** davec has quit IRC
123 2015-12-12T10:19:42  *** Thireus has quit IRC
124 2015-12-12T10:20:00  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
125 2015-12-12T10:53:17  *** blkdb has quit IRC
126 2015-12-12T10:53:33  *** blkdb has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
127 2015-12-12T11:41:55  *** randy-waterhouse has quit IRC
128 2015-12-12T12:28:03  *** tulip has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
129 2015-12-12T13:37:42  *** ParadoxSpiral has quit IRC
130 2015-12-12T14:23:41  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
131 2015-12-12T14:23:41  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
132 2015-12-12T14:53:18  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
133 2015-12-12T15:03:00  *** Tera2342 has quit IRC
134 2015-12-12T15:07:32  *** fkhan has quit IRC
135 2015-12-12T15:14:54  *** dermoth has quit IRC
136 2015-12-12T15:20:28  *** fkhan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
137 2015-12-12T15:39:47  *** tripleslash has quit IRC
138 2015-12-12T15:45:24  *** kanzure_ is now known as kanure
139 2015-12-12T15:45:27  *** kanure is now known as kanzure
140 2015-12-12T15:53:47  *** ParadoxSpiral has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
141 2015-12-12T16:15:32  *** tripleslash has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
142 2015-12-12T16:30:46  *** andytoshi has quit IRC
143 2015-12-12T16:30:46  *** andytoshi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
144 2015-12-12T16:36:16  *** bawong has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
145 2015-12-12T17:14:55  *** corb has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
146 2015-12-12T17:32:06  *** tripleslash has quit IRC
147 2015-12-12T17:35:28  *** s1w- has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
148 2015-12-12T17:36:36  *** btcdrak_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
149 2015-12-12T17:38:29  *** tulp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
150 2015-12-12T17:40:32  *** tulip has quit IRC
151 2015-12-12T17:40:33  *** btcdrak has quit IRC
152 2015-12-12T17:40:34  *** s1w has quit IRC
153 2015-12-12T17:40:38  *** tulp is now known as tulip
154 2015-12-12T17:41:39  *** btcdrak_ is now known as btcdrak
155 2015-12-12T17:54:35  *** bawong has quit IRC
156 2015-12-12T18:11:14  <GitHub166> [bitcoin] smenglish opened pull request #7201: Update hmac_sha256.cpp (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7201
157 2015-12-12T18:17:43  *** bawong has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
158 2015-12-12T18:41:20  *** bawong has quit IRC
159 2015-12-12T18:45:19  <devrandom> Luke-Jr, wumpus: I updated the gitian RELEASE_NOTES to note the move to RSA keys
160 2015-12-12T18:45:37  <devrandom> let me know if anything else is needed
161 2015-12-12T18:52:06  *** corb has quit IRC
162 2015-12-12T18:59:34  *** corb has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
163 2015-12-12T20:09:19  *** arubi has quit IRC
164 2015-12-12T20:12:20  *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
165 2015-12-12T20:26:22  *** sipa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
166 2015-12-12T20:32:08  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
167 2015-12-12T20:38:09  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
168 2015-12-12T20:54:45  <Luke-Jr> how do depends/ determine their sourcecode-path?
169 2015-12-12T20:58:07  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
170 2015-12-12T21:12:40  *** bitdevsnyc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
171 2015-12-12T21:20:58  <Luke-Jr> bleh, depends seems pretty buggy in general
172 2015-12-12T21:21:22  <Luke-Jr> why is my native stuff going under built/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/ when my OS is i686-pc-linux-gnu?
173 2015-12-12T21:27:05  *** bitdevsn_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
174 2015-12-12T21:29:46  *** bitdevsnyc has quit IRC
175 2015-12-12T21:42:33  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
176 2015-12-12T21:42:54  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
177 2015-12-12T22:28:55  *** Arnavion has quit IRC
178 2015-12-12T22:29:19  *** Arnavion has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
179 2015-12-12T22:34:26  *** arubi has quit IRC
180 2015-12-12T22:35:11  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
181 2015-12-12T22:39:36  *** bitdevsn_ has quit IRC
182 2015-12-12T22:39:37  *** Arnavion has quit IRC
183 2015-12-12T22:40:37  *** Arnavion has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
184 2015-12-12T22:41:12  *** bitdevsnyc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
185 2015-12-12T22:42:08  *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
186 2015-12-12T23:10:26  *** arubi has quit IRC
187 2015-12-12T23:19:11  *** arowser has quit IRC
188 2015-12-12T23:19:25  *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
189 2015-12-12T23:19:37  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev