search

revault / practical-revault

Version 0 specifications for a Revault deployment
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
33 stars 9 forks source link

Larger feerate for the Emergency transaction #106

Closed darosior closed 2 years ago

darosior commented 3 years ago

Fixes #86

JSwambo commented 2 years ago

Seems OK to me. Customisation is always possible for particular users, and updating might be necessary in the future.

darosior commented 2 years ago

Pushed a fix, increased the feerate to 300sat/vb and included inactive vaults in the rationale

danielabrozzoni commented 2 years ago

concept ACK 38b5fbf405d4018e036e7400ed41dc4055670cb4

darosior commented 2 years ago

@kloaec @edouardparis small ping so you guys just be aware of this change :)

kloaec commented 2 years ago

I'm confused about the ACKs. https://github.com/revault/practical-revault/commit/38b5fbf405d4018e036e7400ed41dc4055670cb4 does not incorporate the change mentioned in its description. Also I would like to know the rationale for 300 sat/vB, even if arbitrary. Concept ack in general, we need to pick a number.

darosior commented 2 years ago

does not incorporate the change mentioned in its description.

What do you mean exactly?

Also I would like to know the rationale for 300 sat/vB, even if arbitrary.

The commit you linked has this message:

The rationale for this was that WTs won't have a fee reserve dedicated to the Emergency fee bumping. We can use the reserve kept by watchtowers for bumping the Cancel, but it's only kept for active vaults. 300sat/vb is meant to be a sweet pot between:

  • too much reliance on WTs' reserves for the Cancel tx that they may not have (eg if most vaults are inactive)
  • incurring a too high barrier to entry (a larger feerate increases the minimum deposit value) and an Emergency cost (what % of funds are you ready to burn during an Emergency procedure? Supposedly 100% for game theory but hey)

What more rationale do you think is needed?

danielabrozzoni commented 2 years ago

1WU = 4vbytes

Thus

75WU = 300vbytes

It's not so obvious... 😅

darosior commented 2 years ago

Maybe i should switch to only using vbytes instead of weight units?

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Le mardi 19 octobre 2021 à 5:15 PM, Daniela Brozzoni @.***> a écrit :

1WU = 4vbytes

Thus

75WU = 300vbytes

It's not so obvious... 😅

— You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS or Android.

kloaec commented 2 years ago

I was counting 4x75=400 for some reason. Can't even blame the hour.

Regarding the rationale, "too much reliance" [...] "incurring a too high barrier to entry" [...] doesn't give any indication why 300 and not 100 or 1000 imho. I understand the rationale for the change, I don't understand where 300 comes from. What is too much, and what is not enough? Is it based on priori fee spikes?