MEMPOOL SPACE SAGA (My Take) \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

253 sats \ 11 comments \ @EverythingSatsoshi 14 Oct bitcoin

So a ton of people have become peeved simply because of the fact mempool space started rendering arbitrary data on their FOSS project. Is this tantamount to support for these spam projects?

My only issue with mempool space is, I think they've become too big, that a fresh noob might not understand the nuances in this disagreement.

For me, mempool space using their own node as an arbiter of truth for what FEE ESTIMATION should be is what I consider as a flaw that has permeated the space for a while.

Per the way the protocol works, Fee Estimation should be a snapshot of transactions in the blocks, and not just what mempool space's node relays, as it obscures what the other node runners think. And therefore, if you use just what's in their node as a criteria for fee estimation, including spam in there skews the real Fee estimation.

I will add that, most people running bitcoin core's custom relay setting, might actually be another factor to consider, since it's what gives mempool space the gull to assume their node's the final arbiter.

On a brighter side, I do not think mempool space is a net negative, cos they enable things like nation state mempool instances, in the case of El Salvador, and other cool features, that also make it for noobs to better grasp what's going on, on the time chain. The only thing is that a lot of projects also use their APIs, and when things like fee estimation is determined by their node, then all of a sudden most projects using their API, start to carry a lot of information that might not truly be the representation of the entire network.

NOTE: For a fee estimation to be deemed somewhat accurate, the transactions that are broadcasted are measured against transactions in the block recently mined, as well as how long it took for those transactions to get there. Therefore, you mess up what other people might view as the proper fee estimation, and also mess up the payment mechanism payout schema for miners(FPPS).

Thoughts?

view all related items

1630 sats \ 7 replies \ @03393ec3a3 14 Oct

We can bike shed all you want about which valid transactions are “spam” and what is a proper estimate, but Bitcoin a permissionless protocol with an open fee market. Unless you have a low time preference and use custodial L2s, you have to deal with reality, not idealism - and reality is exactly what mempool.space provides.

My pleb friends and I lack the privilege of having tens of millions of sats in limbo indefinitely, and I beg mercy for anyone once those sats are locked in a LN 2-of-2 multisig with a channel partner that quit listening for a funding transaction after expiry - ouch!

I know it hurts to pay these fees, but we have rules, not rulers. These fees are the unfortunate cost of such an arrangement, whether any of us likes it or not. :(

If you can wait for ideal fee rates and you are not at risk of the payer doublespending while you wait, then maybe switch to new tools that let you choose your own fee rate, but I’d say there is reason why so many are switching to mempool.space as the default - it really is the best choice for reliable block inclusion.

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @EverythingSatsoshi OP 14 Oct

#723776

To add to my point

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @EverythingSatsoshi OP 14 Oct

I respect your submission, honestly. However, being a permissionless protocol, also comes with rulesets. One being, fee estimation be checked from transactions being added to the bitcoin blockchain. Mempool space does not respect this, but rather uses it's own archival node as reference. Most people thinking mempool having got enough space(~700GB) for these txs, might mistake it for the blockchain's real fee estimator. If the fee estimation is manipulative and not congruent with what should be, it can be gamed.

I have a lot of respect for the sweat and blood the team over there have put into their project, but the facts are the facts. If we needed mempool's node as the only arbiter of truth, we might as well not need a blockchain.

198 sats \ 4 replies \ @rijndael 15 Oct

I think you are confused about fee estimation.

The core fee estimator works one way (looking at recently confirmed blocks). The mempool-space estimator works differently (looks at what is in its mempool). There are other fee estimation algorithms out there too.

The core algorithm tends to not work well when there are rapid changes in the mempool, because it looks at what has already been confirmed. For steady activity, thats fine but hasnt worked as well as the mempool-space approach for the last two years.

A good fee estimator will help users pick the right fee to get confirmed in the time they prefer. In other words, if you pay for next block, you usually get it and are not grossly overpaying. The core fee estimator isnt better just because its in core.

Also, fee estimators aren’t consensus or policy. They’re a tool.

This:

However, being a permissionless protocol, also comes with rulesets. One being, fee estimation be checked from transactions being added to the bitcoin blockchain. Mempool space does not respect this

Doesnt make sense

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @EverythingSatsoshi OP 15 Oct

I agree with 90%+ of what you've written. I however feel that "spam filters" are actually better for fee estimation. And since you feel the need to use mempool's node, you're not capturing other node's snapshot of their memory pools.

Core isn't the only implementation that uses fee estimation from the recently mined blocks. Knots also does the same thing.

Using recently mined blocks, imho, sorta includes the perspectives of other nodes'(spam filterers included) snapshot, and how long the transactions took before they got to the mined blocks, from their memory pools.

You are however 100% correct that this isn't consensus yet. My only point is, using a narrow POV for fee estimation that the whole network uses, without using what the whole network perceives, can rub people differently, especially when there's scenarios for conflicts of interest cases, as is the current case with the backlash received by mempool-space. People might think they're intentionally allowing their node to relay anything just to skew things for everyone else. And then there's issues about them sophisticated UI trickery to attract people to these blobs of data(I am not even going to fixate on that).

Mempool space is not a net-negative, this is just constructive criticism.

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @03393ec3a3 15 Oct

Whoa... I think I finally understood what you're getting at.

So, with the mempool.space approach, it is effectively a universal inclusion rate, and as such, it is intrinsically a high-water mark that is pressured up by all fee market activity.

However, it sounds like you're also saying that since some block producers, like Ocean+Datum or Braiins+Stratum v2, can purposely assert alternate block inclusion preferences/"filters," these choices put downward pressure on "aligned" fee markets.

So what you're seeing is that there are effectively two parallel fee markets at play? One for all-comers, more or less as described by mempool.space; and another for bitcoin spends with some time to spare, where backward-looking timechain-sourced fee rates will effectively include a discount rate over the last N blocks proportional to how many "aligned" miners versus "profit-maximizing" miners are servicing the mempool.

Is that what you're getting at? If that's what you're saying, I think I you kind of just blew my mind, wow!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @EverythingSatsoshi OP 15 Oct

That's exactly what I am saying. Plus a shit ton of people use mempool-space's fee estimation as what the network's fee estimation is irl(example: timechaincalendar.com, timechainstats.com)

I love these projects to the core, cos they're very beneficial in general. It's just that these nuances can an would be exploited by malicious people.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @rijndael 15 Oct

Knots is a fork of more. So it uses the same fee estimation as core.

What you ideally want to make a good fee estimates is to see whats in the template at as many mining pools as you can. You can’t, but the network is well-connected and the overwhelming majority of hashrate generally sorts by fee rate (plus some tx acceleration) so having a well-connected node and sorting by fee rate does a really good job.

Other “noderunner preferences” doesnt change things unless they are getting transactions to miners that you don’t see.

105 sats \ 0 replies \ @rijndael 15 Oct

mempool-space’s fee estimation is waaaay better than whats in core (which is what youre describing when you talk about it being accurate).