{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwet","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwet","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-12-08\n📝 Original message:On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 4:58 AM, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Having a cost function rather than separate limits does make it easier to\n\u003e build blocks (approximately) optimally, though (ie, just divide the fee by\n\u003e (base_bytes+witness_bytes/4) and sort). Are there any other benefits?\n\nActually being able to compute fees for your transaction: If there are\nmultiple limits that are \"at play\" then how you need to pay would\ndepend on the entire set of other candidate transactions, which is\nunknown to you. Avoiding the need for a fancy solver in the miner is\nalso virtuous, because requiring software complexity there can make\nfor centralization advantages or divert development/maintenance cycles\nin open source software off to other ends... The multidimensional\noptimization is harder to accommodate for improved relay schemes, this\nis the same as the \"build blocks\" but much more critical both because\nof the need for consistency and the frequency in which you do it.\n\nThese don't, however, apply all that strongly if only one limit is\nlikely to be the limiting limit... though I am unsure about counting\non that; after all if the other limits wouldn't be limiting, why have\nthem?\n\n\u003e That seems kinda backwards.\n\nIt can seem that way, but all limiting schemes have pathological cases\nwhere someone runs up against the limit in the most costly way.  Keep\nin mind that casual pathological behavior can be suppressed via\nIsStandard like rules without baking them into consensus; so long as\nthe candidate attacker isn't miners themselves. Doing so where\npossible can help avoid cases like the current sigops limiting which\nis just ... pretty broken."}