Topic: Call for reconfiguration of nodes to relay transactions with fee-rates <1 sat/vb (Read 56 times)

I agree that spam should be eliminated from Bitcoin. I think that the minrelaytxfee is not an effective tool for that. In fact, genuine monetary transactions are the most sensitive to fee levels while spam is not - as evident from blocks full of spam and the highest fees in the last 2 years.

For spam protection, there is the which is much more effective. Also, there is the (OP_FALSE OP_IF) filter bugfix implemented in Bitcoin Knots.

^ there's no need for fork to implement the changes but I doubt it's an easy thing either convincing the nodes to change their default settings whenever we want to so I just thought why not set to the lowest possible value and let the users give an option to choose the lowest or priority fee according to their needs. Anyway 0.1sat/vb is more than welcome as well as of current situation.

Orginal spammers doesn't really care about the fee because the 0.1 or 1sat doesn't stop them from minting their useless tokens but I agree that lower the fees the more chance of spamming the blockchain.

I disagree. Fees of 0.001 sat/vb are not realistic in the short to medium term, so there is no urgency at all to set that default value so low. And as I wrote, this is a configuration option that can be changed at any time by the nodes, not a softfork or so everybody must agree on, so there is no need to set it taking into account the next 10 years.

If the fee level is allowed to fall too low during some times, this would also probably again incentive behavior which will lead to more congestion in FOMO times. Runes or Ordinals could then practically be minted without any cost (and thus without a realistic "profit expectation"), as it occurred during the Litecoin and Dogecoin Ordinals waves (see this graph) which were quite "useless" as they didn't really generate much value for their networks.

The higher incentives for data transactions is also the reason why I wrote that I have to think more about that proposal: perhaps even 0.1 sat/vbyte would already have these unintended consequences.

If we have 0.1sat/vb then after another 10 years we may feel that it is huge value according to the price situation at that time so setting low as possible can be a good thing so we don't need to adjust every time. And since this is a free market everyone can opt to pay the high fee which can be 0.1 or even 1 sat/vb but I feel having the opportunity to pay as low as possible is kind of right to everyone who owns bitcoin and that paves the way for bitcoin to be used for actual payments since the most criticism that bitcoin receives is about expensive and slow transfers.

I would probably support this move (not totally sure still, have to think more), although in my opinion ABCbits' suggestion of 0.1 sat/vbyte is better. This is not something set in stone but simply a default configuration so it can be played around a bit with it.

I am an advocate of a free fee market and miners should be able to live from transaction fees in 2140 (and already several decades before, tx fees should become their main income). And I'm also pro incentives to move off chain (to LN, Ark or sidechains/rollups).

However, in the current configuration there is an artificial barrier for the market value to form, and there should also be incentives to use the network in low-congestion phases (like for consolidations). If the low fee phase with 1 sat/vByte "as new normal" continues, users will set lower fees "just to try", and eventually single nodes and mining pools will probably move to a lower value to maximize their income if enough users set a lower fee.

This would look like "free market is working", but it also would it make it more difficult for users without that much technical knowledge to know what is the lowest possible fee. Okay, with 1 sat/vByte they will always be at the safe side, but I think with a new default value of 0.1 the whole process would look cleaner and more transparent.

0.001 sat/vbyte would be too low.
Even if the minimum relay fee is 0.001 sat/vbyte, we will usually have to use higher fee rates.

Assume that you want to make transaction with 1 segwit input and 1 single output.
If nodes decrease the minimum relay fee rate to 0.001 sat/vbyte, the minimum fee for your transaction would be around 0.11 sat.
Since the smallest unit we have is 1 sat, you would have to pay the minimum fee of 1 sat for your transaction and that would make the fee rate around 0.01 sat/vbyte.

0.001 sat/vB sounds too low for me, where i would suggest 0.1 sat/vB instead. But if you want to see this happen, i believe you have better chance by convincing developer of Bitcoin Core and other full node software to change default minrelayvalue on their software instead.

I disagree. Miners and mining pools may either accept low fee-rates or lose opportunity to earn them otherwise.

1 satoshi/vbyte is like a defaul minimum fee rate by Bitcoin nodes that run by Bitcoin miners. They can config their nodes with lower fee rates but think about their income from mining. It comes from two sources: Bitcoin block subsidy that is fixed, and Bitcoin transaction fees that is flexible and depended on fee rates and transaction sizes of transactions they confirm.

If I am a Bitcoin miner or a Bitcoin mining pool, I have no interest to reconfig the minimum fee rate in my Bitcoin mempool to lower than 1 satoshi/vbyte.

The minrelaytxfee default value of 1000/kvB (1 sat/vbyte) has been set in Bitcoin nodes since 2013 or earlier. In 2013, 1000 sats were priced at $0.01, today it is about 100 times more. Wouldn't you like to consider adjusting your node configuration and lower the hurdle, perhaps? I would suggest setting (which translates to 0.001 sat/vbyte) as a rule of thumb. The value could be set in a bitcoin.conf file. There is negligible number of such reconfigured nodes relaying transactions with fee-rates below 1 sat/vbyte currently.

There is the intention to unblock transactions with fee-rate below 1 sat/vbyte in Bitcoin. Probably consolidation and multisig types of transactions would benefit the most.