pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 9 replies \ @gregtonoski OP 31 Jan \ parent \ on: Call for nodes reconfiguration: minrelaytxfee=0.00000001 bitcoin_Mining
It wouldn't cause "it free to send any amount of data to all bitcoin nodes". Let's not exaggerate.
write
preview
this territory is moderated
0 sats \ 8 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.
reply
0 sats \ 7 replies \ @gregtonoski OP 31 Jan
That's not true. It means that the sender paid for the extra bytes at the same fee-rate.
reply
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @Murch 1 Feb
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
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @gregtonoski OP 2 Feb
That's ok. In the end there is one transaction in mempools. A transaction is replaced with another one of the same size. What do you think justifies charging additional fee in such a case?
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Murch 2 Feb
No that’s not okay. The network forwarding endless amounts of useless data is an obvious bandwidth wasting attack and denial of service vector.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @gregtonoski OP 3 Feb
Let's not exaggerate. This setting reconfiguration doesn't cause endless amounts of data to be forwarded.
What makes you considering a transaction with fee at 1 sat/vbyte as okay while the same transaction with smaller fee, e.g. at 0.1 sat/vbyte as not okay ("useless data")?
view all 3 replies