12015-12-12T00:00:16  <zookolaptop> Makes sense. Also I'll bet there are quantization effects and "economies of scale" more locally, too, e.g. bufferbloat.
  22015-12-12T00:00:54  <gmaxwell> well mining inequality of delay throws this all out.
  32015-12-12T00:01:54  * zookolaptop squints.
  42015-12-12T00:01:55  <zookolaptop> What's that?
  52015-12-12T00:03:24  <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.
  62015-12-12T00:03:59  <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)
  72015-12-12T00:04:22  *** amiller has quit IRC
  82015-12-12T00:07:21  <gmaxwell> (thats for btc per 1000 bytes, which is usually the unit we use for fees)
  92015-12-12T00:08:03  <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.
 102015-12-12T00:09:09  <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.
 112015-12-12T00:13:03  <zookolaptop> I don't know what that function looks like.
 122015-12-12T00:13:06  <zookolaptop> I can't graph that function in my head.
 132015-12-12T00:13:09  <zookolaptop> And see the slope you mean.
 142015-12-12T00:13:23  *** ParadoxSpiral_ has quit IRC
 152015-12-12T00:15:16  *** bawong has quit IRC
 162015-12-12T00:15:38  <zookolaptop> And I don't know about the straum observed measurements, but I'm very glad to hear there were empirical measurements,
 172015-12-12T00:15:55  <zookolaptop> and I conclude from theexample numbers--0.0004588 BTC/kb--that nobody cares about this. :-)
 182015-12-12T00:16:02  <zookolaptop> Because that's too little to care about.
 192015-12-12T00:16:56  *** bitdevsnyc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 202015-12-12T00:17:50  <zookolaptop> Do you disagree?
 212015-12-12T00:18:31  <gmaxwell> over 0-1mb it looks like a straight line.   Overall it looks like e^(-x).  (starts out high, goes down)
 222015-12-12T00:18:31  <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.
 232015-12-12T00:18:51  <gmaxwell> zookolaptop: yes/no.  It's actually considerably higher than gees being paid right now.
 242015-12-12T00:18:53  <zookolaptop> Ok.
 252015-12-12T00:19:49  <zookolaptop> Oh, it works out to about 0.45 BTC for a full 1 MB block?
 262015-12-12T00:20:12  *** amiller has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 272015-12-12T00:20:15  <gmaxwell> Yes.
 282015-12-12T00:20:23  <zookolaptop> That's 2% of current reward, instead of the 1% that I estimated from empirical measurements above.
 292015-12-12T00:20:55  <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%?
 302015-12-12T00:21:06  <gmaxwell> Yes.
 312015-12-12T00:21:15  <zookolaptop> Hm.
 322015-12-12T00:21:46  <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.
 332015-12-12T00:22:33  <zookolaptop> Right, and I my only modification to that point is to argue that not doing this is rational for them.
 342015-12-12T00:22:51  <zookolaptop> Because tweaking a config param in their system endangers their operations, which could suddenly cost them $30K/day if it goes wrong,
 352015-12-12T00:23:05  <zookolaptop> and the best possible outcome they could get from the "rational" tweak you propose is, like, $50/day or so ?
 362015-12-12T00:23:14  <gmaxwell> And many other effects too.  Of course, all thats fragile, e.g. someone publishes another version.
 372015-12-12T00:23:34  <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!
 382015-12-12T00:24:09  <zookolaptop> It's too bad you weren't in Hong Kong. The miners panel was awesome.
 392015-12-12T00:24:11  <zookolaptop> amiller: same to you!
 402015-12-12T00:25:19  <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.
 412015-12-12T00:25:52  <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.
 422015-12-12T00:26:06  <zookolaptop> Um, isn't that an argument that tweaking this config could improve profit by *more* than $50/day ?
 432015-12-12T00:26:21  <zookolaptop> Okay, I accept your point.
 442015-12-12T00:27:39  <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.
 452015-12-12T00:28:02  <gmaxwell> esp since the random block finding makes the fullness at any instant pretty unpredictable.
 462015-12-12T00:29:08  <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.
 472015-12-12T00:31:27  <zookolaptop> Sounds reasonable.
 482015-12-12T00:31:40  <zookolaptop> So, under the assumptions laid out above, is there a nice simple alternative?
 492015-12-12T00:31:59  <zookolaptop> The goals would be: 1. not so bad for miners that they choose to diverge from it, in the short term
 502015-12-12T00:32:04  <zookolaptop> which as discussed should be easy to meet.
 512015-12-12T00:32:10  <zookolaptop> 2. Predictable behavior for users ?
 522015-12-12T00:33:27  <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).
 532015-12-12T00:35:55  <zookolaptop> *nod*
 542015-12-12T00:36:49  <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.
 552015-12-12T00:38:02  <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.
 562015-12-12T00:39:50  <zookolaptop> Target blocksize?
 572015-12-12T00:40:03  <zookolaptop> Moving average of fees from recent blocks ?
 582015-12-12T01:02:59  *** davec has quit IRC
 592015-12-12T01:03:36  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 602015-12-12T01:05:52  *** bitdevsn_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 612015-12-12T01:07:06  *** bitdevsnyc has quit IRC
 622015-12-12T01:13:39  *** Tera2342 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 632015-12-12T01:24:44  *** paulbernard has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 642015-12-12T01:49:37  *** zookolaptop has quit IRC
 652015-12-12T01:52:31  *** zookolaptop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 662015-12-12T02:08:13  *** zookolaptop has quit IRC
 672015-12-12T02:11:20  <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
 682015-12-12T02:11:28  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
 692015-12-12T02:12:58  *** bitdevsnyc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 702015-12-12T02:15:35  *** instagibbs has quit IRC
 712015-12-12T02:16:52  *** bitdevsn_ has quit IRC
 722015-12-12T02:18:04  *** zookolaptop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 732015-12-12T02:24:59  *** Tera2342 has quit IRC
 742015-12-12T02:34:13  *** zookolaptop has quit IRC
 752015-12-12T02:34:39  *** raedah has quit IRC
 762015-12-12T02:37:57  *** tripleslash has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 772015-12-12T02:50:52  *** jannes has quit IRC
 782015-12-12T02:58:13  *** bitdevsnyc has quit IRC
 792015-12-12T03:19:45  *** bawong has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 802015-12-12T03:24:35  *** jl2012 has quit IRC
 812015-12-12T03:33:10  <btcdrak> gmaxwell: that's a pretty interesting conversation regarding fees.
 822015-12-12T03:49:45  *** belcher has quit IRC
 832015-12-12T04:11:40  *** jl2012 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 842015-12-12T04:29:43  <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)
 852015-12-12T05:10:39  *** spqr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 862015-12-12T05:10:44  <spqr> hello
 872015-12-12T05:41:26  *** spqr has quit IRC
 882015-12-12T05:59:51  *** droark has quit IRC
 892015-12-12T07:36:28  *** bawong has quit IRC
 902015-12-12T07:53:44  *** jcorgan is now known as jcorgan|away
 912015-12-12T08:47:57  *** tulip has quit IRC
 922015-12-12T09:05:46  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 932015-12-12T09:27:56  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 942015-12-12T09:38:56  *** jtimon has quit IRC
 952015-12-12T09:52:58  *** Tera2342 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 962015-12-12T09:55:08  *** Thireus has quit IRC
 972015-12-12T09:56:56  *** ParadoxSpiral has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 982015-12-12T09:58:57  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 992015-12-12T10:09:26  *** kanzure_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1002015-12-12T10:10:15  *** xiangfu_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1012015-12-12T10:10:57  *** evoskuil has quit IRC
1022015-12-12T10:10:57  *** ParadoxSpiral has quit IRC
1032015-12-12T10:10:58  *** BlueMatt has quit IRC
1042015-12-12T10:10:58  *** Thireus has quit IRC
1052015-12-12T10:10:58  *** davec has quit IRC
1062015-12-12T10:10:58  *** kanzure has quit IRC
1072015-12-12T10:10:59  *** xiangfu has quit IRC
1082015-12-12T10:10:59  *** harding has quit IRC
1092015-12-12T10:10:59  *** harding has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1102015-12-12T10:11:00  *** evoskuil has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1112015-12-12T10:11:00  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1122015-12-12T10:11:19  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1132015-12-12T10:12:25  *** ParadoxSpiral has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1142015-12-12T10:12:46  *** BlueMatt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1152015-12-12T10:14:10  *** arowser has quit IRC
1162015-12-12T10:14:33  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1172015-12-12T10:16:58  *** harding_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1182015-12-12T10:17:52  *** davec_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1192015-12-12T10:18:36  *** evoskuil has quit IRC
1202015-12-12T10:18:36  *** harding has quit IRC
1212015-12-12T10:18:37  *** evoskuil has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1222015-12-12T10:18:37  *** davec has quit IRC
1232015-12-12T10:19:42  *** Thireus has quit IRC
1242015-12-12T10:20:00  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1252015-12-12T10:53:17  *** blkdb has quit IRC
1262015-12-12T10:53:33  *** blkdb has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1272015-12-12T11:41:55  *** randy-waterhouse has quit IRC
1282015-12-12T12:28:03  *** tulip has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1292015-12-12T13:37:42  *** ParadoxSpiral has quit IRC
1302015-12-12T14:23:41  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1312015-12-12T14:23:41  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1322015-12-12T14:53:18  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1332015-12-12T15:03:00  *** Tera2342 has quit IRC
1342015-12-12T15:07:32  *** fkhan has quit IRC
1352015-12-12T15:14:54  *** dermoth has quit IRC
1362015-12-12T15:20:28  *** fkhan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1372015-12-12T15:39:47  *** tripleslash has quit IRC
1382015-12-12T15:45:24  *** kanzure_ is now known as kanure
1392015-12-12T15:45:27  *** kanure is now known as kanzure
1402015-12-12T15:53:47  *** ParadoxSpiral has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1412015-12-12T16:15:32  *** tripleslash has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1422015-12-12T16:30:46  *** andytoshi has quit IRC
1432015-12-12T16:30:46  *** andytoshi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1442015-12-12T16:36:16  *** bawong has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1452015-12-12T17:14:55  *** corb has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1462015-12-12T17:32:06  *** tripleslash has quit IRC
1472015-12-12T17:35:28  *** s1w- has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1482015-12-12T17:36:36  *** btcdrak_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1492015-12-12T17:38:29  *** tulp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1502015-12-12T17:40:32  *** tulip has quit IRC
1512015-12-12T17:40:33  *** btcdrak has quit IRC
1522015-12-12T17:40:34  *** s1w has quit IRC
1532015-12-12T17:40:38  *** tulp is now known as tulip
1542015-12-12T17:41:39  *** btcdrak_ is now known as btcdrak
1552015-12-12T17:54:35  *** bawong has quit IRC
1562015-12-12T18:11:14  <GitHub166> [bitcoin] smenglish opened pull request #7201: Update hmac_sha256.cpp (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7201
1572015-12-12T18:17:43  *** bawong has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1582015-12-12T18:41:20  *** bawong has quit IRC
1592015-12-12T18:45:19  <devrandom> Luke-Jr, wumpus: I updated the gitian RELEASE_NOTES to note the move to RSA keys
1602015-12-12T18:45:37  <devrandom> let me know if anything else is needed
1612015-12-12T18:52:06  *** corb has quit IRC
1622015-12-12T18:59:34  *** corb has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1632015-12-12T20:09:19  *** arubi has quit IRC
1642015-12-12T20:12:20  *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1652015-12-12T20:26:22  *** sipa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1662015-12-12T20:32:08  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1672015-12-12T20:38:09  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1682015-12-12T20:54:45  <Luke-Jr> how do depends/ determine their sourcecode-path?
1692015-12-12T20:58:07  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
1702015-12-12T21:12:40  *** bitdevsnyc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1712015-12-12T21:20:58  <Luke-Jr> bleh, depends seems pretty buggy in general
1722015-12-12T21:21:22  <Luke-Jr> why is my native stuff going under built/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/ when my OS is i686-pc-linux-gnu?
1732015-12-12T21:27:05  *** bitdevsn_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1742015-12-12T21:29:46  *** bitdevsnyc has quit IRC
1752015-12-12T21:42:33  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1762015-12-12T21:42:54  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
1772015-12-12T22:28:55  *** Arnavion has quit IRC
1782015-12-12T22:29:19  *** Arnavion has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1792015-12-12T22:34:26  *** arubi has quit IRC
1802015-12-12T22:35:11  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
1812015-12-12T22:39:36  *** bitdevsn_ has quit IRC
1822015-12-12T22:39:37  *** Arnavion has quit IRC
1832015-12-12T22:40:37  *** Arnavion has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1842015-12-12T22:41:12  *** bitdevsnyc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1852015-12-12T22:42:08  *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1862015-12-12T23:10:26  *** arubi has quit IRC
1872015-12-12T23:19:11  *** arowser has quit IRC
1882015-12-12T23:19:25  *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1892015-12-12T23:19:37  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev