[bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: UTWFOTIB - Use Transaction Weight For Ordering Transactions In Blocks

[Damian Williamson]

Hello Jim,


The variable block sizes would not, as I understand it, be easily implemented by a solo miner.


You are right, there is presently nothing stopping a miner from ordering the transactions included by a priority that is not entirely based on the fee.


It may be possible to verify blocks conform to the proposal by showing that the probability for all transactions included in the block statistically conform to a probability distribution curve, if that is necessary and,  *if* the individual transaction priority can be recreated. I am not that deep into the mathematics, however, it may also be possible to use a similar method to do this just based on the fee, that statistically, the blocks conform to a fee distribution. Needs a clever mathematician.


It is certainly possible to verify that blocks conform to the expected size.


Honour is why people follow policy without enforcement. I may be in the wrong group. (sic)


Regards,

Damian Williamson

________________________________
From: bitcoin-dev-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org <bitcoin-dev-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Jim Renkel via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 December 2017 4:18:11 PM
To: bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: UTWFOTIB - Use Transaction Weight For Ordering Transactions In Blocks


As i understand it, the transactions to be included in a block are entirely up to the miner of that block.


What prevents a miner from implementing the proposal on their own?


If this is adopted as some kind of "policy", what forces a miner to follow it?

Jim Renkel


On 12/2/2017 10:07 PM, Damian Williamson via bitcoin-dev wrote:

# BIP Proposal: UTWFOTIB - Use Transaction Weight For Ordering Transactions In Blocks

I admit, with my limited experience in the operation of the protocol, the section entitled 'Solution operation' may not be entirely correct but you will get the idea. If I have it wrong, please correct it back to the list.


## The problem:


Everybody wants value. Miners want to maximize revenue from fees. Consumers want transaction reliability and, (we presume) low fees.

Current transaction bandwidth limit is a limiting factor for both.


## Solution summary:


Provide each transaction with a transaction weight, being a function of the fee paid (on a curve), and the time waiting in the transaction pool (also on a curve) out to n days (n=30 ?); the transaction weight serving as the likelihood of a transaction being included in the current block, and then use a target block size.

Protocol enforcement to prevent high or low blocksize cheating to be handled by having the protocol determine the target size for the current block using; current transaction pool size x ( 1 / (144 x n days ) ) = transactions to be included in the current block.

The curves used for the weight of transactions would have to be appropriate.


## Pros:

* Maximizes transaction reliability.
* Maximizes possibility for consumer and business uptake.
* Maximizes total fees paid per block without reducing reliability; because of reliability, confidence and uptake are greater; therefore, more transactions and more transactions total at priority fees.
* Market determines fee paid for transaction priority.

* Fee recommendations work all the way out to 30 days or greater.

* Provides additional block entropy and greater security since there is less probability of predicting the next block.


## Cons:

* ?
* Must be first be programmed.
* Anything else?


## Solution operation:


As I have said, my simplistic view of the operation. If I have this wrong, please correct it back to the list.

1. The protocol determines the target block size.

2. Assign each transaction in the pool a transaction weight based on fee and time waiting in the transaction pool.

3. Begin selecting transactions to include in the current block using transaction weight as the likelihood of inclusion until target block size is met.

4. Solve block.


Regards,

Damian Williamson



_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20171207/312cb740/attachment-0001.html>