From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink•com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: SPV Fee Discovery mechanism
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:10:22 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5579C0FE.8080701@thinlink.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150611131048.GA24053@savin.petertodd.org>
On 6/11/2015 6:10 AM, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 02:18:30PM -0700, Aaron Voisine wrote:
>> The other complication is that this will tend to be a lagging indicator
>> based on network congestion from the last time you connected. If we assume
>> that transactions are being dropped in an unpredictable way when blocks are
>> full, knowing the network congestion *right now* is critical, and even then
>> you just have to hope that someone who wants that space more than you do
>> doesn't show up after you disconnect.
> Hence the need for ways to increase fees on transactions after initial
> broadcast like replace-by-fee and child-pays-for-parent.
>
> Re: "dropped in an unpredictable way" - transactions would be dropped
> lowest fee/KB first, a completely predictable way.
Quite agreed. Also, transactions with unconfirmed inputs should be
among the first to get dropped, as discussed in the "Dropped-transaction
spam" thread. Like all policy rules, either of these works in
proportion to its deployment.
Be advised that pull request #6068 emphasizes the view that the network
will never have consistent mempool/relay policies, and on the contrary
needs a framework that supports and encourages pluggable, generally
parameterized policies that could (some might say should) conflict
wildly with each other.
It probably doesn't matter that much. Deploying a new policy still
wouldn't be much easier than deploying a patched version. I mean,
nobody has proposed a policy rule engine yet (oops).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-11 17:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-10 17:37 Nathan Wilcox
2015-06-10 19:19 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-10 20:00 ` Nathan Wilcox
2015-06-10 20:03 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-11 18:30 ` Nathan Wilcox
2015-06-11 18:55 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-13 15:38 ` Nathan Wilcox
2015-06-10 21:18 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-10 20:26 ` Mike Hearn
2015-06-10 21:18 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-11 10:19 ` Mike Hearn
2015-06-11 13:10 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-11 14:11 ` Martin Lie
2015-06-11 17:10 ` Tom Harding [this message]
2015-06-11 17:52 ` Mike Hearn
2015-06-12 6:44 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-11 18:18 ` Nathan Wilcox
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5579C0FE.8080701@thinlink.com \
--to=tomh@thinlink$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox