Interesting analysis on the potential impact on open source developers of the latest poorly thought out EU Act.

TL&DR: it looks like they duct-taped some amendments to protect open source developers ... a bit.

https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/eu-cra-what-does-it-mean-for-open-source/

TIL:

* if you see a small pond on the dry side of a dyke and it winds around it, that's where a breach happened

* the New York Stock exchange is still paid 2.5% annually on an eternal bearer bond, issued after a major flood in 1624. It's on display there.

* I'm paying for that (it's my water management tax district)

* there was a major flood on New Years Day of 1624 (from a river close to Utrecht)

* always insist on inflation adjustment: they only get €15 now

Video (in Dutch): https://youtu.be/QJXzWlplCgg

Clearly it was Tyler Durden :-) nostr:note1l7vey094tzpahz9yf70qkr64dx0w43etmp2kwhazzcfs2pcrdvhq6d4ecw

nostr:npub1au23c73cpaq2whtazjf6cdrmvam6nkd4lg928nwmgl78374kn29sq9t53j well then I'll shamelessly promote this episode about said witness discount.

https://bitcoinexplainedpodcast.com/@nado/episodes/bitcoin-explained-79-the-witness-discount

Indeed there may not be. If (CPFP) packages are incentive compatible, then not supporting them in the p2p protocol creates and incentive to submit them out of band.

But having the p2p support also makes more obvious that out of band payment might be cheaper than sending the whole package.

That seems like a more clear articulation of what you're arguing for.

Last time I (briefly) looked at the relevant Bitcoin Core PR's the sequencing was:

1. Package relay for n=2 (1 parent, 1 child)

2. V3 transactions (including ephemeral anchors)

3. Cluster mempool

4. n>2 package relay

This sequence is not set in stone:

(3) and (4) don't require (2)

(3) does not require (1) and (2)

But n=2 packages is special in that it's less complex and is sufficient for v3 transactions.

In other words: if you want to argue against package relay, soon is a good time.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27463

How much worse do you think ephemeral anchors are (incentive wise) than the current dust-anchors? At first glance I would think the 546 sat difference is insignificant in a >200 sat/vbyte environment.

Meanwhile 0-value outputs reduce complexity and afaik are essential for ln-symmetry.

One final point: regarding recommendation 3, I don't think anyone would want to move forward with v3 without ephemeral anchors.

Trying to answer my own question... in v3 the parent pays 0 while the child pays the price of two slots. The opportunity cost for the miner to replace slot 10 with the 0-fee parent is simply the fee of the transaction that would otherwise be in slot 10.

So as you point out, they could charge out of bound anything between about 50% and 100% of the child fee. Slightly less because of the slope in fee rate, that effect is tiny.

I'm also not sure if I follow the out-of-band economic logic.

Let's imagine blocks fit exactly 10 transactions and they're all equal size. Alice needs to get their closing transaction in on time and has two options:

1. Use CPFP by paying a fee rate based on what the mempool shows, such that the combined child and parent make it into slot 9 and 10.

2. Pay the miner out of band to get the parent in slot 10, without a child transaction.

A miner would only do this if they can earn more than the fees in slot 11.

So it depends on the slope in fees. In a high fee environment I would expect this slope to be fairly low at the 4 VMB edge. But haven't run the numbers.

Can you elaborate a bit on the Phoenix example? Is it actually holding on chain funds in reserve in case it needs to CPFP? It probably should, but how is that worse than with other nodes?

Although I agree that some models are a bit too woke, this seems excessive. nostr:note1z38ugmwjz7jffmeyepykcfescptwcyza6stdwx9xw72f7v79gd8sha5peq

A 2A fuse that blows at 10A, nice! Makes for a good gift if you don't like someone.

https://youtu.be/B90_SNNbcoU

Will you do assume utxo as well? I have a draft PR with a mainnet snapshot.

Interesting move. Curious to see what miners pick. And how things will go with Stratum v2 (fee depends on how many inscriptions are in the miner declared template???) nostr:note1qtvvv8ph3v4p9gsmcltll39defjd4fjqfefn3t6txg82fhcmj9jsv9asmr

Everything you always wanted to know about BIP 30 and 34...

https://bitcoinexplainedpodcast.com/@nado/episodes/episode-87-the-block-1-983-702-problem-s7s3j

One Gigasat! nostr:note17gfm0k0ssw4qctpge32dp3nulu975mjpdl9nqmrs78msp622d90qvdral4

Also the spec is still a bit in flux, so even some miners that support sv2 need to fall back to sv1 and then use a translator back to sv2.

But people should try it.

Please my family, fix the feed duplication... nostr:npub1xtscya34g58tk0z605fvr788k263gsu6cy9x0mhnm87echrgufzsevkk5s

Also it turns you can upload the same photo multiple times :-)

Same in Europe.