ismaelsadeeq
commented at 11:44 am on May 23, 2024:
member
This PR is the complete implementation of #30392 it aim to improve Bitcoin Core Fee Estimation by:
Reducing Overestimation: Address and mitigate the overestimation issues present in the current BlockPolicyEstimator. This issue has been documented and acknowledged by various sources:
Mempool Awareness: Enable the fee estimator to be aware of the mempool state, allowing it to react faster and more accurately to rapidly changing fee market conditions, when targeting very short timeframes.
Empowering Node Users: Allow node users to be self-sovereign by using their node’s estimates, reducing reliance on third-party fee estimations.
Simplifying Strategy Integration: Simplify the process of adding new fee estimation strategies in the future.
The detailed design document for this PR can be found here.
Please note that the design is subject to change as we refine the approach.
This is a collaborative effort with @willcl-ark and incorporates insights from other contributors.
DrahtBot
commented at 11:44 am on May 23, 2024:
contributor
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update.
Conflicts
Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:
#31382 (kernel: Flush in ChainstateManager destructor by TheCharlatan)
#30079 (Fee Estimation: Ignore all transactions that are CPFP’d by ismaelsadeeq)
#29680 (wallet: fix unrelated parent conflict doesn’t cause child tx to be marked as conflict by Eunovo)
If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.
LLM Linter (✨ experimental)
Possible typos and grammar issues:
In feature_fee_estimation.py docstring: “Truend” → “True and”
In mempool_forecaster.cpp added error message: “Forecaster unable a fee rate due to insufficient data” → “Forecaster unable to provide a fee rate due to insufficient data”
In forecaster_man.cpp added log: “at least %d blocks needs to be processed” → “at least %d blocks need to be processed”
In forecaster_util.h comment for p95: “// 5th percentile” → “// 95th percentile”
No other incomprehensible typos were found.
DrahtBot added the label
CI failed
on May 23, 2024
DrahtBot
commented at 3:18 pm on May 23, 2024:
contributor
🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. Make sure to run all tests locally, according to the
documentation.
Possibly this is due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being
incompatible with the current code in the target branch). If so, make sure to rebase on the latest
commit of the target branch.
Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.
luke-jr
commented at 5:20 pm on May 23, 2024:
member
Make the fee estimator aware of the state of the mempool, allowing it to respond to changing conditions immediately.
The state of the node’s mempool may not accurately reflect the state of others’ mempools, and not even its own mempool when the block is found in the future. It isn’t a good single source of information. Perhaps it is a good idea to use it as a secondary source, but probably it should only ever adjust fee estimations upward, not down.
willcl-ark
commented at 8:41 am on May 24, 2024:
member
The state of the node’s mempool may not accurately reflect the state of others’ mempools, and not even its own mempool when the block is found in the future. It isn’t a good single source of information.
Correct. The rationale behind this set of changes can be summed up briefly as follows:
Add a new standalone modular fee estimation manager to which (many) Forcasters can be trivially added or removed (vs modifying BlockPolicyEstimator).
Provide two forcaster implementations which do not exist today ( 1. mempool-based and 2. previous-6-blocks-seen-in-mempool) to demonstrate functionality.
In the present, there is a strong tendency for users of Bitcoin Core to consult external fee estimation services when they want timely (next 1 or 2 blocks) confirmation of transactions, whilst also not overpaying. Examples of these include mempool.space, whatthefee.io, Samourai’s nextblock.is (now down), johoe, blockchair etc., with more popping up every month.
We also analysed/estimated Bitcoin Core users not using in-built estimation in a post here.
In our opinion having users feel the need to use external fee estimation services that they could equally have served to them by their own node, feels sub-optimal.
In addition to this, when users do use the current Bitcoin Core fee estimator, there are often times when they end up overpaying, see delving bitcoin post Mempool based fee estimation and various issues over the years e.g. #30009 . This is avoidable.
Work from a student of @renepickhardtlink demonstrated something we also measured independently – that bitcoin core’s current estimates are often overpaying significantly following fee spikes. This effect can be directly mitigated by using a mempool-based estimation.
Perhaps it is a good idea to use it as a secondary source, but probably it should only ever adjust fee estimations upward, not down.
In this changeset we take the approach of using the lowest result from all “confident” Forcasters. The rationale is that we expect users wanting fast confirmation to have RBF enabled, allowing them to bump fees if we still undershoot.
Comments from @hardinglink explained that it may be possible for miners to artificially increase a strictly-mempool-based fee-rate. By taking the lower (confident) result from nForcasters, we attempt to protect against this attack (and others like it), at the potential cost of having to RBF.
We do plan to add additional sanity checks to the mempool-based Forcaster as described in #27995, but these are not yet implemented. In any case, even without these additional checks we have been seeing much-improved short time-scale estimations from Bitcoin Core.
ismaelsadeeq force-pushed
on May 29, 2024
ismaelsadeeq force-pushed
on May 29, 2024
DrahtBot removed the label
CI failed
on May 29, 2024
DrahtBot added the label
Needs rebase
on Jun 11, 2024
ismaelsadeeq force-pushed
on Jul 3, 2024
DrahtBot removed the label
Needs rebase
on Jul 3, 2024
ismaelsadeeq force-pushed
on Jul 3, 2024
DrahtBot added the label
CI failed
on Jul 3, 2024
DrahtBot
commented at 5:02 pm on July 3, 2024:
contributor
🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. Make sure to run all tests locally, according to the
documentation.
Possibly this is due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being
incompatible with the current code in the target branch). If so, make sure to rebase on the latest
commit of the target branch.
Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.
Make sure to run all tests locally, according to the documentation.
The failure may happen due to a number of reasons, for example:
Possibly due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being
incompatible with the current code in the target branch). If so, make sure to rebase on the latest
commit of the target branch.
A sanitizer issue, which can only be found by compiling with the sanitizer and running the
affected test.
An intermittent issue.
Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.
DrahtBot added the label
CI failed
on Jul 24, 2024
willcl-ark added the label
Needs Conceptual Review
on Jul 24, 2024
DrahtBot removed the label
Needs rebase
on Jul 24, 2024
ismaelsadeeq force-pushed
on Jul 24, 2024
DrahtBot removed the label
CI failed
on Jul 24, 2024
ismaelsadeeq force-pushed
on Aug 13, 2024
DrahtBot added the label
CI failed
on Aug 13, 2024
ismaelsadeeq force-pushed
on Aug 13, 2024
DrahtBot removed the label
CI failed
on Aug 13, 2024
hebasto added the label
Needs CMake port
on Aug 16, 2024
DrahtBot added the label
Needs rebase
on Aug 21, 2024
glozow added the label
TX fees and policy
on Aug 21, 2024
maflcko removed the label
Needs CMake port
on Aug 29, 2024
ismaelsadeeq force-pushed
on Sep 3, 2024
ismaelsadeeq
commented at 9:43 am on September 3, 2024:
member
Rebased and added newly introduced files to cmakelist file instead makefile
DrahtBot removed the label
Needs rebase
on Sep 3, 2024
DrahtBot added the label
Needs rebase
on Sep 20, 2024
ismaelsadeeq force-pushed
on Oct 14, 2024
DrahtBot removed the label
Needs rebase
on Oct 14, 2024
DrahtBot added the label
CI failed
on Oct 14, 2024
DrahtBot
commented at 5:03 pm on October 14, 2024:
contributor
Try to run the tests locally, according to the documentation. However, a CI failure may still
happen due to a number of reasons, for example:
Possibly due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being
incompatible with the current code in the target branch). If so, make sure to rebase on the latest
commit of the target branch.
A sanitizer issue, which can only be found by compiling with the sanitizer and running the
affected test.
An intermittent issue.
Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.
murchandamus
commented at 5:57 pm on October 21, 2024:
contributor
Concept ACK! Thank you for working on this.
vasild
commented at 4:28 am on November 6, 2024:
contributor
Concept ACK
Allow node users to be self-sovereign by using their node’s estimates, reducing reliance on third-party fee estimations.
having users feel the need to use external fee estimation services that they could equally have served to them by their own node, feels sub-optimal
Indeed, I do that :face_with_head_bandage:
ismaelsadeeq force-pushed
on Nov 11, 2024
ismaelsadeeq force-pushed
on Nov 11, 2024
ismaelsadeeq force-pushed
on Nov 11, 2024
ismaelsadeeq force-pushed
on Nov 11, 2024
DrahtBot removed the label
CI failed
on Nov 11, 2024
ismaelsadeeq force-pushed
on Nov 14, 2024
ismaelsadeeq force-pushed
on Nov 14, 2024
DrahtBot added the label
CI failed
on Nov 14, 2024
DrahtBot
commented at 8:52 pm on November 14, 2024:
contributor
Try to run the tests locally, according to the documentation. However, a CI failure may still
happen due to a number of reasons, for example:
Possibly due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being
incompatible with the current code in the target branch). If so, make sure to rebase on the latest
commit of the target branch.
A sanitizer issue, which can only be found by compiling with the sanitizer and running the
affected test.
An intermittent issue.
Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.
ismaelsadeeq force-pushed
on Nov 14, 2024
ismaelsadeeq
commented at 9:52 pm on November 14, 2024:
member
I have updated this PR based on feedback from #30391 and in-person conversations:
I am now using the newly introduced FeeFrac datatype, which does not lose precision like CFeeRate.
Updated the CalculatePercentile function to return a monotonically decreasing estimate for high and low priority. The previous approach took the fee rate of the package at the exact percentile, which could be high due to the ancestors of the percentile package included previously in a sibling package.
Relevant commit: 2ac86a8fd7fe108078511ef2f6ad77e315591a2b.
I’ve also added a test for this.
Added a functional test for the estimatefee RPC behavior (commit ac8f2caf050e73b038a8e03a51dfe69e1ea7aa19).
Removed the tracing commit after merging #26593, as it changes the tracing structure, which I haven’t reviewed yet. The tracing commit was relevant for collecting node’s estimation data for analysis, it can be added later on.
This PR has now received a conceptual review from a few contributors, so we can proceed to code and approach review.
DrahtBot removed the label
CI failed
on Nov 14, 2024
DrahtBot added the label
Needs rebase
on Nov 20, 2024
ismaelsadeeq force-pushed
on Nov 25, 2024
ismaelsadeeq force-pushed
on Nov 25, 2024
DrahtBot removed the label
Needs rebase
on Nov 25, 2024
DrahtBot added the label
Needs rebase
on Dec 17, 2024
ismaelsadeeq force-pushed
on Jan 2, 2025
DrahtBot removed the label
Needs rebase
on Jan 2, 2025
DrahtBot added the label
Needs rebase
on Jan 6, 2025
glozow referenced this in commit
66aa6a47bd
on Jan 8, 2025
ismaelsadeeq force-pushed
on Jan 15, 2025
ismaelsadeeq force-pushed
on Jan 15, 2025
DrahtBot added the label
CI failed
on Jan 15, 2025
ismaelsadeeq force-pushed
on Jan 15, 2025
ismaelsadeeq force-pushed
on Jan 15, 2025
ismaelsadeeq force-pushed
on Jan 15, 2025
DrahtBot removed the label
CI failed
on Jan 15, 2025
DrahtBot removed the label
Needs rebase
on Jan 16, 2025
DrahtBot added the label
Needs rebase
on Jan 22, 2025
ismaelsadeeq force-pushed
on Jan 22, 2025
DrahtBot removed the label
Needs rebase
on Jan 22, 2025
DrahtBot added the label
Needs rebase
on Mar 11, 2025
in
src/rpc/fees.cpp:103
in
e8c4e88c71outdated
95@@ -94,6 +96,76 @@ static RPCHelpMan estimatesmartfee()
96 };
97 }
98 99+static RPCHelpMan estimatefee()
100+{
101+ return RPCHelpMan{
102+ "estimatefee",
103+ "\nEstimates the approximate fee per kilobyte needed for a transaction to begin\n"
yancyribbens
commented at 9:29 pm on March 11, 2025:
This is confusing I think. It’s titled estimatefee however a fee is usually a bitcoin amount. A feerate however is a bitcoin amount per size.
yancyribbens
commented at 9:30 pm on March 11, 2025:
should this be “estimatefeerate”?
ismaelsadeeq
commented at 11:43 am on March 12, 2025:
ismaelsadeeq
commented at 2:31 pm on April 13, 2025:
The new RPC is gone; I’ve integrated this new feature into estimatesmartfee and maintained backward compatibility for users who want only block policy, using a flag.
in
src/test/mempoolforecaster_tests.cpp:51
in
e8c4e88c71outdated
46+ // Test when targetBlocks > MEMPOOL_FORECAST_MAX_TARGET
47+ const auto fee_estimate = mempool_fee_estimator->EstimateFee(conf_target);
48+ BOOST_CHECK(fee_estimate.Empty());
49+ BOOST_CHECK(*fee_estimate.GetError() == strprintf("Confirmation target %s exceeds the maximum limit of %s. mempool conditions might change, "
50+ "making forecasts above %s block may be unreliable",
51+ MEMPOOL_FORECAST_MAX_TARGET + 1, MEMPOOL_FORECAST_MAX_TARGET, MEMPOOL_FORECAST_MAX_TARGET));
yancyribbens
commented at 9:33 pm on March 11, 2025:
shouldn’t the first positional argument be conf_target ?
ismaelsadeeq
commented at 11:45 am on March 12, 2025:
No, conf_target is a struct can not be passed to strprintf
yancyribbens
commented at 3:16 pm on March 12, 2025:
Ok, it’s just that you are using MEMPOOL_FORECAST_MAX_TARGET + 1 as the positional argument for Confirmation target %s which doesn’t seem right, but maybe I’m mistaken.
in
src/test/mempoolforecaster_tests.cpp:64
in
e8c4e88c71outdated
61+
62+ conf_target.value = MEMPOOL_FORECAST_MAX_TARGET;
63+ // Test when there are not enough mempool transactions to get an accurate estimate
64+ {
65+ std::vector<CTransactionRef> highfee_txs;
66+ // Add transactions with high_fee fee until mempool transactions weight is more than 25th percent of DEFAULT_BLOCK_MAX_WEIGHT
yancyribbens
commented at 9:34 pm on March 11, 2025:
0 // Add transactions with high_fee until mempool transactions weight is more than 25th percent of DEFAULT_BLOCK_MAX_WEIGHT
yancyribbens
commented at 9:36 pm on March 11, 2025:
than 25th percent of DEFAULT_BLOCK_MAX_WEIGHT
Maybe others understand this, but I’m not sure what 25th percent of … means. Is that the same as 25% of ..?
ismaelsadeeq
commented at 11:48 am on March 12, 2025:
Try to run the tests locally, according to the documentation. However, a CI failure may still
happen due to a number of reasons, for example:
Possibly due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being
incompatible with the current code in the target branch). If so, make sure to rebase on the latest
commit of the target branch.
A sanitizer issue, which can only be found by compiling with the sanitizer and running the
affected test.
An intermittent issue.
Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.
DrahtBot removed the label
Needs rebase
on Apr 13, 2025
ismaelsadeeq force-pushed
on Apr 13, 2025
ismaelsadeeq
commented at 2:34 pm on April 13, 2025:
member
Rebased
DrahtBot removed the label
CI failed
on Apr 13, 2025
سلام…من یه مدت درگیر مشکلات شخصی بودم…به هیچ چیزی دسترسی نداشتم…چند
نفر بجای من فعال بود…چیززیادی از دست دادم.؟؟لطفا کمک کنید..بتونم مشکل رو
حل کنم..
tabasom12
در تاریخ یکشنبه ۱۳ آوریل ۲۰۲۵، ۱۹:۰۴ Abubakar Sadiq Ismail <
@.***> نوشت:
DrahtBot added the label
Needs rebase
on Apr 14, 2025
fees: refactor: rename policy_fee_tests.cpp to feerounder_tests.cpp
- Also remame the test suite name to match the new name.
4187ad19c3
fees: refactor: rename fees to block_policy_estimator
- Also move it to policy/fees and update the includes
87f9d4af9d
fees: rename fees_args to block_policy_estimator_args
- Also move them to policy/fees/ and update includes
- Note: the block_policy_estimator_args.h include in block_policy_estimator_args.cpp was done manually.
7f7da59d65
fees: return current block height in `estimateSmartFee`47f012dd9f
fees: add forecaster structures
i - Forecaster abstract class is the base class of fee rate forecasters.
Derived classes must provide concrete implementation
of the virtual methods.
ii - ForecastResult struct represent the response returned by
a fee rate forecaster.
iii - ForecastType will be used to identify forecasters.
Each time a new forecaster is added, a corresponding
enum value should be added to ForecastType.
Co-authored-by: willcl-ark <will@256k1.dev>
cbf568f564
fees: add ForecasterMan class
- Its a module for managing and utilising multiple
fee rate forecasters to provide fee rate forecast.
- The ForecasterManager class allows for the registration of
multiple fee rate forecasters.
Co-authored-by: willcl-ark <will@256k1.dev>
1ac79fc5a9
fees: make block_policy_estimator a forecasterb996a12cf4
fees: add block policy estimator to forecaster manager
- This changes `CBlockPolicyEstimator` to a shared pointer
this gives us three advantages.
- Registering to validation interface using shared pointer
- Scheduling block policy estimator flushes using shared pointer
- Registering block policy estimator to forecaster_man
f320b7c501
fees: add `forecastTypeToString` method
- This method converts a ForecastType enum to its
string representation.
6bb23b1cae
fees: add `CalculatePercentiles` function
- The CalculatePercentiles function, given
a vector of feerates in the order they were added
to the block, will return the 25th, 50th, 75th,
and 95th percentile feerates.
- Also add a unit test for this function.
95e678d578
fees: add `MemPoolForecaster` class
- The mempool forecaster uses the unconfirmed transactions in the mempool
to generate a fee rate that a package should have for it to confirm as soon as possible.
Co-authored-by: willcl-ark <will@256k1.dev>
73e72cc129
test: add mempool forecaster unit testd8c2f8c2f0
ismaelsadeeq force-pushed
on Apr 15, 2025
DrahtBot removed the label
Needs rebase
on Apr 15, 2025
ismaelsadeeq force-pushed
on Apr 25, 2025
fees: cache `MemPoolPolicyEstimator` forecasts
- Provide new forecast only when the time delta from previous
forecast is older than 30 seconds.
- This caching helps avoid the high cost of frequently generating block templates.
Co-authored-by: willcl-ark <will@256k1.dev>
7bf7b212a5
fees: add `ForecastFeeRateFromForecasters` method
- Polls all registered forecasters and selects the lowest fee rate.
75e6bb5ada
===== End of FeeRateForecasterMan commits =====821d58a825
rpc: update `estimatefeesmartfee` to use forecaster_man
- Given a confirmation target, we use fee estimator module that call all
available fee estimator forcasters and return the lowest fee rate that if
a transaction use will likely confirm in a given confirmation target.
- This also provides backward compatibility
Co-authored-by: willcl-ark <will@256k1.dev>
88aad65959
test: add `estimatesmartfee` new functionality4ce9df0e15
===== End of RPC commits =====02a0639602
fees: introduce locks to forecaster manager491b4799e7
fees: add sanity check to forecaster manager
- Only return fee rate forecast when 95th percentile txs of the last
6 blocks were seen in the node's mempool.
- Also add functional test
This is a metadata mirror of the GitHub repository
bitcoin/bitcoin.
This site is not affiliated with GitHub.
Content is generated from a GitHub metadata backup.
generated: 2025-04-28 15:13 UTC
This site is hosted by @0xB10C More mirrored repositories can be found on mirror.b10c.me