<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1zhglq8mpxxgea52rw22s7s7rjfp74pm2j4vh42djwqd899wen2hsjvtp39

Profile Code

nprofile1qqspt50srasnryv769ph99g0g0peysl2sa4f2kt64xe8qxnjjhve4tcpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsv25fx3

Publishing to

relay.snort.social

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Last Notes

2023-06-07 15:34:33 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-05-26
📝 Original message:You're the Chief Scientist of __ViaCoin__ a alt with 30 second blocks
and you have big banks as clients. Shit like replace-by-fee and leading
the anti-scaling mob is for your clients, not Bitcoin. Get the fuck out.
Peter Todd - 8930511 Canada Ltd.
1214-1423 Mississauga Valley Blvd.
Mississauga ON L5A 4A5
Canada
https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=8930511
On 2015-05-26 00:10, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 12:03:09AM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
>> CPFP also solves it just fine.
>
> CPFP is a significantly more expensive way of paying fees than RBF,
> particularly for the use-case of defragmenting outputs, with cost
> savings ranging from 30% to 90%
>
>
> Case 1: CPFP vs. RBF for increasing the fee on a single tx
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Creating an spending a P2PKH output uses 34 bytes of txout, and 148
> bytes of txin, 182 bytes total.
>
> Let's suppose I have a 1 BTC P2PKH output and I want to pay 0.1 BTC to
> Alice. This results in a 1in/2out transaction t1 that's 226 bytes in
> size.
> I forget to click on the "priority fee" option, so it goes out with the
> minimum fee of 2.26uBTC. Whoops! I use CPFP to spend that output,
> creating a new transaction t2 that's 192 bytes in size. I want to pay
> 1mBTC/KB for a fast confirmation, so I'm now paying 418uBTC of
> transaction fees.
>
> On the other hand, had I use RBF, my wallet would have simply
> rebroadcast t1 with the change address decreased. The rules require you
> to pay 2.26uBTC for the bandwidth consumed broadcasting it, plus the
> new
> fee level, or 218uBTC of fees in total.
>
> Cost savings: 48%
>
>
> Case 2: Paying multiple recipients in succession
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Suppose that after I pay Alice, I also decide to pay Bob for his hard
> work demonstrating cryptographic protocols. I need to create a new
> transaction t2 spending t1's change address. Normally t2 would be
> another 226 bytes in size, resulting in 226uBTC additional fees.
>
> With RBF on the other hand I can simply double-spend t1 with a
> transaction paying both Alice and Bob. This new transaction is 260
> bytes
> in size. I have to pay 2.6uBTC additional fees to pay for the bandwidth
> consumed broadcasting it, resulting in an additional 36uBTC of fees.
>
> Cost savings: 84%
>
>
> Case 3: Paying multiple recipients from a 2-of-3 multisig wallet
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The above situation gets even worse with multisig. t1 in the multisig
> case is 367 bytes; t2 another 367 bytes, costing an additional 367uBTC
> in fees. With RBF we rewrite t1 with an additional output, resulting in
> a 399 byte transaction, with just 36uBTC in additional fees.
>
> Cost savings: 90%
>
>
> Case 4: Dust defragmentation
> ----------------------------
>
> My wallet has a two transaction outputs that it wants to combine into
> one for the purpose of UTXO defragmentation. It broadcasts transaction
> t1 with two inputs and one output, size 340 bytes, paying zero fees.
>
> Prior to the transaction confirming I find I need to spend those funds
> for a priority transaction at the 1mBTC/KB fee level. This transaction,
> t2a, has one input and two outputs, 226 bytes in size. However it needs
> to pay fees for both transactions at once, resulting in a combined
> total
> fee of 556uBTC. If this situation happens frequently, defragmenting
> UTXOs is likely to cost more in additional fees than it saves.
>
> With RBF I'd simply doublespend t1 with a 2-in-2-out transaction 374
> bytes in size, paying 374uBTC. Even better, if one of the two inputs is
> sufficiently large to cover my costs I can doublespend t1 with a
> 1-in-2-out tx just 226 bytes in size, paying 226uBTC.
>
> Cost savings: 32% to 59%, or even infinite if defragmentation w/o RBF
> costs you more than you save
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across
> Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable
> Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

2023-06-07 15:30:35 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-02-15
📝 Original message:On 2015-02-15 17:13, Tamas Blummer wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
>
>> Yes you are dicking around.
>
> I thought I was clear, that I am using Bitcoin Core as border router
> talking to its P2P interface.
>
> The reimplementation of consensus code helped me to deeply understand
> the protocol, aids debugging
> and now comes handy to create a side chain.
>
>> Don't assume your prior experience with other commercial projects
>
> Acquire some before you claim its useless.
^^^ THIS ^^^
Can we recognize Peter Todd's lack of respect and outright
unprofesionalism here?
Peter: Someone so young with so little actual experience shouldn't be
going around so casually bad-mouthing the work of others or dismissing
people with decades more experience than you. Don't write long angry
rants against the ideas of others when you haven't even read what they
have to say. Own up to it when you get caught doing it. You'll find out
the hard way that blackmailing people, even your clients, into using
your ideas may get you attention, but it'll make you a pariah in the
long run. (does encouraging illegal fraud belong on this mailing list?)
Remember that twitter is public. Do you really want future employers
reading jokes about pedophilia and rape? Do you want to be known for
snappy one liners and giving journalists headlines or writing solid code
that gets used by real businesses? (not "DarkLeaks") Are you trying to
be a rock star or team member?