Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why not Child-Pays-For-Parent?

From: Richard Moore <me@ricmoo•com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail•com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why not Child-Pays-For-Parent?
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:25:20 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <837A1D9C-FD4E-4DF7-BE6B-4C90EB07C0A7@ricmoo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADm_WcZkH9fZD23MH8m4wXEnqqjmMg1mPFjeME+uHbMgPNViEw@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3177 bytes --]

By ignored, do you mean the nodes/miners didn’t even include the low fee transaction in their memory pools, so would no longer have access to it? If a node decides to not include it in its memory pool for this reason, I guess it won’t send out any INV messages either?

Could the broadcaster of TX_b rebroadcast TX_a? Then I guess any node that did add it to its memory pool would realize it’s not new and not rebroadcast it to those who didn’t, so it won’t propagate… Although, after receiving the orphan transaction TX_b, it could re-(pay attention) to an INV with TX_a (for a short-ish time to prevent further DoS vectors)? Assuming the sender of TX_b has a copy of TX_a…

> On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:13 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail•com> wrote:
> 
> CPFP is interesting, but it does not fully cover the case it is trying to address:   If TX_a goes out without sufficient fee, sending out a new TX_b will not help TX_a suddenly reach nodes/miners that ignored TX_a.
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Richard Moore <me@ricmoo•com <mailto:me@ricmoo•com>> wrote:
> Hey guys,
> 
> With all the recent congestion and discussion regarding FSS-RBF, I was wondering if there good reasons not to have CPFP as a default policy? Or is it?
> 
> I was also wondering, with CPFP, should the transaction fee be based on total transactions size, or the sum of each transaction’s required fee? For example, a third transaction C whose unconfirmed utxo from transaction B has an unconfirmed utxo in transaction A (all of A’s inputs are confirmed), with each A, B and C being ~300bytes, should C’s transaction fee be 0.0001 btc for the ~1kb it is about to commit to the blockchain, or 0.0003 btc for the 3 transactions it is going to commit.
> 
> I tried to test it out a few days ago, sending 0.0008 btc without any fee, then that utxo into another transaction w/ 0.0001 btc. It still hasn’t confirmed, which could be any of: a) CPFP doesn’t have enough hash power, b) the amounts are too small, c) the coins are too new, d) the fee should have actually been 0.0002 btc, e) the congestion is just too great; or some combination.
> 
> Just curious as whatnot…
> 
> Thanks,
> RicMoo
> 
> .·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><(((º>
> 
> Richard Moore ~ Founder
> Genetic Mistakes Software inc.
> phone: (778) 882-6125 <tel:%28778%29%20882-6125>
> email: ricmoo@geneticmistakes•com <mailto:ricmoo@geneticmistakes•com>
> www: http://GeneticMistakes.com <http://geneticmistakes.com/>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>
> 
> 

.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><(((º>

Richard Moore ~ Founder
Genetic Mistakes Software inc.
phone: (778) 882-6125
email: ricmoo@geneticmistakes•com <mailto:ricmoo@geneticmistakes•com>
www: http://GeneticMistakes.com <http://geneticmistakes.com/>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5296 bytes --]