[bitcoin-dev] Announcement: Full-RBF Miner Bounty

[alicexbt]

Hi Peter,

> tl;dr: I'm broadcasting full-RBF replacements paying extremely high fees to
> reward miners that turn on full-RBF. I'm starting small, just ~$100/block in
> times of congestion. Miner and pool profit margins are pretty small, on the
> order of $1k/block in many cases, so I know it doesn't take that much more
> money to make a difference.

I appreciate this effort and perhaps this was all that was needed in addition to Bitcoin Core's inclusion of full rbf support. Making it default right away or enabling preferential peering with service flag in a bitcoin core release was unnecessary.

> If you'd like to donate to this effort, send BTC to
> bc1qagmufdn6rf80kj3faw4d0pnhxyr47sevp3nj9m

Sorry, I don't trust you based on some of the things you support on Twitter. Hopefully, others will donate and help this bounty.

/dev/fd0

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

------- Original Message -------
On Wednesday, November 2nd, 2022 at 2:56 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:


> I'm now running a full-RBf bounty program for miners.
> 
> tl;dr: I'm broadcasting full-RBF replacements paying extremely high fees to
> reward miners that turn on full-RBF. I'm starting small, just ~$100/block in
> times of congestion. Miner and pool profit margins are pretty small, on the
> order of $1k/block in many cases, so I know it doesn't take that much more
> money to make a difference.
> 
> Why should you do this? Full-RBF/zeroconf has been discussed to death. But
> tl;dr: You'll earn more money, and help transition Bitcoin to a more secure
> mempool policy based on economic incentives rather than trust.
> 
> 
> If you're a miner and want to participate, the easiest way to so is to use the
> mempoolfullrbf=1 option in the upcoming Bitcoin Core v24 release (eg the
> 24.0rc3 tag), or use the mempoolreplacement=fee option in Bitcoin Knots.
> 
> You can also just modify the code yourself by removing the opt-in RBF check.
> For example against the v23.0 tag:
> 
> $ git diff
> diff --git a/src/validation.cpp b/src/validation.cpp
> index 214112e2b..44c364623 100644
> --- a/src/validation.cpp
> +++ b/src/validation.cpp
> @@ -736,7 +736,7 @@ bool MemPoolAccept::PreChecks(ATMPArgs& args, Workspace& ws)
> // check all unconfirmed ancestors; otherwise an opt-in ancestor
> // might be replaced, causing removal of this descendant.
> if (!SignalsOptInRBF(*ptxConflicting)) {
> - return state.Invalid(TxValidationResult::TX_MEMPOOL_POLICY, "txn-mempool-conflict");
> + // return state.Invalid(TxValidationResult::TX_MEMPOOL_POLICY, "txn-mempool-conflict");
> }
> 
> ws.m_conflicts.insert(ptxConflicting->GetHash());
> 
> 
> Once you've enabled full-RBF, you need a full-RBF peer. I'm running a few of
> them:
> 
> cup.nop.lol
> mug.nop.lol
> jar.nop.lol
> jug.nop.lol
> 
> These nodes run a preferential peering patch (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25600)
> to ensure that full-RBF nodes are interconnected to each other and replacements
> can easily propagate. Also feel free to contact me if you'd like to peer with a
> private node.
> 
> 
> If you'd like to donate to this effort, send BTC to
> bc1qagmufdn6rf80kj3faw4d0pnhxyr47sevp3nj9m
> 
> 
> ...and yes, I'm well aware that miners could collect this bounty in other ways,
> eg by raising minimum fees. Doing that also breaks zeroconf, so I'm not too
> concerned.
> 
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev