Why are nodes still keeping a higher relay fee?

[Mia Chloe]

So today I made a transaction out from my Electrum early this morning I have been really busy with a couple other stuffs and it recently just occurred to me I did broadcast a transaction. Anyways long story short only for me to check just now and discover it was dropped well don't judge me lol I used 1 sat/vbyte obviously it's supposed to be around 11 mb of depth.

I've been using direwolfm14 node for quite a while now sometimes it disconnects and that's how I've been able to use fees that low and obviously I wasn't connected to his mode initially hence that drop. My point is if we are trying to cut fees with updates and efficiency why are these pools and nodes still keeping their relay fees high?  I find the whole stuff pretty controversial.

[Cookdata]

It's obviously for spam protection, but mining pools might be using high relay fee to get more sats from fees when they found a block. Transactions fees are not as big compare to block fees but they count too for miners revenue. Mining pool with high relay fee will make more sats from transactions fee when they found a block than pool that accept transactions with low fees.

I don't think all nodes will reduce their relay fee because others are doing the same, it's a policy rule, each node can decide what fee range of transaction they want to keep on their mempool, we have  plenty of nodes that are filtering transactions, each with their rules and what they want to accept and relay to other nodes.

[Mia Chloe]

~snip

I agree with some of your point but like I said initially a few things still sound controversial. Setting a smaller relay fee at least 0.5 sats per vbytes doesn't really stop miners from choosing which transactions to add to their block. Infact people are barely using ,1 sat per v byte, most are broadcasting from custodial wallets that choose the fees for them.

My point initially is if we really want a subsidy in fees then miners have to adopt it fairly too because at the moment it seems the reliance on block reward is shifting rapidly to fees instead.

[Zaguru12]

My point initially is if we really want a subsidy in fees then miners have to adopt it fairly too because at the moment it seems the reliance on block reward is shifting rapidly to fees instead.

You know for fact that there is no consensus rule on the threshold for minimum fee to be accepted on each mempool and rather it’s a policy thing for each node, so what if some of these nodes with pretty high limit for minimum relay fee are actually because of their low memory space (RAM) which its default is 300MB, so probably some nodes actually set their minimum fee higher than others to have transactions which are pretty going to gey confirmed rather than setting it lower to have lots of transactions that could be dropped later (spam) due to the 14 days threshold for them to stay.

We could argue that of recent there isn’t congestion like that and they could actually reduce the minimum relay fee but generally I think this is the reason why most still Keeps it that high. The ones with pretty lower relay fees have higher memory space than the default.

Also I think the movement from block reward to transaction fee as incentives could be reason for this filtering I could say, normally the mining nodes are there to make money and do not prioritize keeping the transaction fee lower like we

[DireWolfM14]

I would guess it's because some have not upgraded to the latest version of bitcoin core.  Possibly because node operators like to wait to see which version has the longest shelf life without bugs and incremental updates.  To that point; the default minrelayfee was reduced to 100 sats per kvB in version 29.1, which was released in September.  There have been two incremental updates to V29 since then, and three versions of 30.x.  

Assuming some had the minrelayfee flagged in their bitcoin.conf file to prevent stuck transactions when fees soared in the past, they may have just not adjusted the setting when migrating to a newer version.  

There could be many reasons nodes haven't adopted lower fee settings, but eventually things will settle.  Default settings have a way of making themselves more and more common as time goes on.

As for my node going down, yeah, sorry about that.  I've noticed it too.  That's what you get with a budget hosting provider, but I can't afford the $4k a month it would take to run in on AWS.

[Cookdata]

~snip

I agree with some of your point but like I said initially a few things still sound controversial. Setting a smaller relay fee at least 0.5 sats per vbytes doesn't really stop miners from choosing which transactions to add to their block. Infact people are barely using ,1 sat per v byte, most are broadcasting from custodial wallets that choose the fees for them.

My point initially is if we really want a subsidy in fees then miners have to adopt it fairly too because at the moment it seems the reliance on block reward is shifting rapidly to fees instead.

I have tested some transactions recently in Bluewallet with some public electrum servers, the default ones actually and I found out they don't accept transactions with 1 sats/vbyte, you have to increase it by some decimal like 1.1 sats, 1.2 sats and so on before your transaction get accepted and relay.

Code:

bitcoin.lu.ke:50002

I tried to connect to this one recently for quick transaction with 1sat/vbyte but was rejected until I use 1.1sat, there are more of them on the list that has given same error but I didn't bothered to pay attention to them.

Since relayfee are policy rule, there could be many reasons to why some node still reject transactions below 1 sats/vbyte than what we have discussed but generally it might be akin to spam.

[nc50lc]

Code:

bitcoin.lu.ke:50002

I tried to connect to this one recently for quick transaction with 1sat/vbyte but was rejected until I use 1.1sat, there are more of them on the list that has given same error but I didn't bothered to pay attention to them.

It's not surprising since this particular server uses Bitcoin Knots instead of Core.
Its default minrelayfee doesn't support sub-1sat/vB transactions, the owner must have set it to default.

Now, the question is, why 1sat/vB isn't accepted as well since the server allows it.
Perhaps it's a "fee rate rounding issue" in Electrum or Blue Wallet where it's actually 0.99sat/vB rather than flat 1sat/vB.
Manually calculating the absolute fee and virtual sizes of those rejected transactions should answer if this is a server or client issue.

[ABCbits]

Even if most node would relay TX with fee rate below 1 sat/vB, it doesn't change the fact some mining pool decide not to include TX below that fee rate. From my past observation, there are at least 4 mining pool do that, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5565739.msg66063663#msg66063663.

Infact people are barely using ,1 sat per v byte

I'm not fully sure about it, when https://mempool.space/graphs/mempool#1y show most TX is in range 0-1 sat/vB. Although i expect some of them are non-monetary TX.

most are broadcasting from custodial wallets that choose the fees for them.

Some non-custodial wallet also don't let use specify the exact fee rate or the user don't use custom fee rate.

[FanTuner]

  nodes set higher relay fees to protect themselves from spam, if they accepted very low fees all the time, the mempool could get clogged, slowing down the network for everyone.

[DaveF]

So today I made a transaction out from my Electrum early this morning I have been really busy with a couple other stuffs and it recently just occurred to me I did broadcast a transaction. Anyways long story short only for me to check just now and discover it was dropped well don't judge me lol I used 1 sat/vbyte obviously it's supposed to be around 11 mb of depth.

I've been using direwolfm14 node for quite a while now sometimes it disconnects and that's how I've been able to use fees that low and obviously I wasn't connected to his mode initially hence that drop. My point is if we are trying to cut fees with updates and efficiency why are these pools and nodes still keeping their relay fees high?  I find the whole stuff pretty controversial.

It should not have been dropped no matter what if it was just a few hours. Even a 0.1 sat/vbyte I sent yesterday stayed in the mempool for 6+ hours till it was mined.

Either way, as DW14 said default settings are now lower and the defaults do tend to wind up being the common ones over time.

...As for my node going down, yeah, sorry about that.  I've noticed it too.  That's what you get with a budget hosting provider, but I can't afford the $4k a month it would take to run in on AWS.

Any reason you are not running it at home on your own equipment other then privacy?
I keep wanting to put another public node and I keep using that HW to tinker with other things and then get distracted even more.

-Dave

[DireWolfM14]

Any reason you are not running it at home on your own equipment other then privacy?

No, just privacy.  I use my home server to run monerod and LND also.  I need monerod's RPC port open for my mobile and laptop wallet to have a backend, and LND is my lightning wallet essentially.  I only use tor for in-bound bitcoind peers, use wireguard to remote in when I'm traveling, and have things locked down with nftables, but I'm still not confident enough with my security to prevent a hack.  And I'd rather not have any service broadcasting to the planet that there's something bitcoin related going on at that IP.

I keep wanting to put another public node and I keep using that HW to tinker with other things and then get distracted even more.

I just upgraded my main node hardware to a Dell R630 with 128GB of ram, and it's smoking fast.  So far it's been incredibly faster and more reliable than the HP server I was running.  It would make a great production machine for a public node but as I said above, I'm too bashful to put it out there.

[DaveF]

Any reason you are not running it at home on your own equipment other then privacy?

No, just privacy.  I use my home server to run monerod and LND also.  I need monerod's RPC port open for my mobile and laptop wallet to have a backend, and LND is my lightning wallet essentially.  I only use tor for in-bound bitcoind peers, use wireguard to remote in when I'm traveling, and have things locked down with nftables, but I'm still not confident enough with my security to prevent a hack.  And I'd rather not have any service broadcasting to the planet that there's something bitcoin related going on at that IP.

I keep wanting to put another public node and I keep using that HW to tinker with other things and then get distracted even more.

I just upgraded my main node hardware to a Dell R630 with 128GB of ram, and it's smoking fast.  So far it's been incredibly faster and more reliable than the HP server I was running.  It would make a great production machine for a public node but as I said above, I'm too bashful to put it out there.

Look at streams in Nginx proxy manager. Should be able to allow you to use a lower end VPS to just forward everything to your monster box.
There are other apps that do similar. I have a plan to do an implantation like that sooner or later. ^{*Most likely later}

It's probably close to what it looks like knots is doing to show they have so many nodes out there. They just put a forwarder on a bunch of boxes to get their numbers up and send them back to a few full nodes.

-Dave

[MarryWithBTC]

...My point is if we are trying to cut fees with updates and efficiency why are these pools and nodes still keeping their relay fees high?  I find the whole stuff pretty controversial.

I understand your point, at a point I understood the reason behind it but another thing still bothers me

First, I understand that your transaction was evicted because higher fee transactions entered the mempool. Although the relay policy is not about making fees cheaper because if fees are extremely low, and nodes accept such transactions with very low fees continously, the mempool will be flooded with transactions that are not urgent. Just like you broadcasted yours and forgot about it.

But my concern is, despite this relay policy, we still see successful dust attacks spamming the network occasionally, how do they achieve this? Does it mean they pay high fees for those insignificant transactions?

[Mia Chloe]

Now, the question is, why 1sat/vB isn't accepted as well since the server allows it.
Perhaps it's a "fee rate rounding issue" in Electrum or Blue Wallet where it's actually 0.99sat/vB rather than flat 1sat/vB.
Manually calculating the absolute fee and virtual sizes of those rejected transactions should answer if this is a server or client issue.

Well I do agree about the slight changes in Electrum but the point is 1 sat/vbyte as the minimum for most nodes is kinda bad if you ask me though. Most times if you broadcast with 1 sat/vbyte it could end up as 0.99sat/vbyte upon broadcast it hadn't really occurred to me initially to ask why.. can you say a little something on that?

nodes set higher relay fees to protect themselves from spam, if they accepted very low fees all the time, the mempool could get clogged, slowing down the network for everyone.

Nahhh that's a damn lie. I utterly believe it's just miners incentive. Spam is already being avoided by the dust limit not increasing fee rate unnecessarily.

[hosemary]

Well I do agree about the slight changes in Electrum but the point is 0.1 sat/vbyte as the minimum for most nodes is kinda bad if you ask me though.

Why do you think it's bad that the minimum relay fee for most nodes is 0.1 sat/vbyte?
As you know, the minimum relay fee for almost all nodes was 1 sat/vbyte before and many nodes have decreased that to 0.1 sat/vbyte. Maybe, I didn't get your point correctly, but isn't it good that now we can make transactions with lower fee rates?

[Mia Chloe]

Why do you think it's bad that the minimum relay fee for most nodes is 0.1 sat/vbyte?
As you know, the minimum relay fee for almost all nodes was 1 sat/vbyte before and many nodes have decreased that to 0.1 sat/vbyte. Maybe, I didn't get your point correctly, but isn't it good that now we can make transactions with lower fee rates?

Was a minor typo error actually, I initially meant 1 sat/vbyte which is what most nodes are still using as their minimum relay fee. If you check the mempool a couple random times you'll most likely find the fee rate for medium speed around that 0.2 sat/vbyte and 0.5sat/vbyte range.

So it makes sense to have our minimum fee at least below 0.5 sat/vbyte. I'll bet you a lot of people still broadcast with above 1 sat/vbyte because of the nodes they get defaultly connected to.

[nc50lc]

Now, the question is, why 1sat/vB isn't accepted as well since the server allows it.
Perhaps it's a "fee rate rounding issue" in Electrum or Blue Wallet where it's actually 0.99sat/vB rather than flat 1sat/vB.
Manually calculating the absolute fee and virtual sizes of those rejected transactions should answer if this is a server or client issue.

Well I do agree about the slight changes in Electrum but the point is 1 sat/vbyte as the minimum for most nodes is kinda bad if you ask me though. Most times if you broadcast with 1 sat/vbyte it could end up as 0.99sat/vbyte upon broadcast it hadn't really occurred to me initially to ask why.. can you say a little something on that?

I don't get its relevance to my reply about checking whether it's the transaction or server-side issue.

Anyways, unlike what you said, most nodes actually accept sub-1sat/vB fee transactions.
It's just Electrum servers represent a bare minimum of the Bitcoin nodes so Electrum users will more likely randomly connect to a server that doesn't use the new minrelayfee standard if the server is not manually selected.

About the possibility of slightly miscalculated fee rate, before sub-1sat/vB is standard, clients had to calculate it with at least 1sat/vB fee rate and not <0.99, there shouldn't be any error on its calculation at all or it'll just be rejected.
Now that the minrelayfee is lower, clients may have missed if there's an issue with their fee rounding since 0.99sat/vB will not be rejected by most nodes when testing.

[NotATether]

Code:

bitcoin.lu.ke:50002

I tried to connect to this one recently for quick transaction with 1sat/vbyte but was rejected until I use 1.1sat, there are more of them on the list that has given same error but I didn't bothered to pay attention to them.

Since relayfee are policy rule, there could be many reasons to why some node still reject transactions below 1 sats/vbyte than what we have discussed but generally it might be akin to spam.

You're going to need to maintain a list of these nodes, or let the software automatically discover the nodes for you.

Hardcoding one and expecting certain flags to be toggled on the node isn't really a great idea.

Well I do agree about the slight changes in Electrum but the point is 1 sat/vbyte as the minimum for most nodes is kinda bad if you ask me though. Most times if you broadcast with 1 sat/vbyte it could end up as 0.99sat/vbyte upon broadcast it hadn't really occurred to me initially to ask why.. can you say a little something on that?

Well it's kind of expected for the fee rate to not be exact when the transaction size in bytes and the fee paid in bytes don't divide evenly.