> sure it's worth doing, at least immediately. Weakening the non-final ==
>>
> non-standard test to give a window of, say, 3 blocks, would be fine I
>> think.
>>
>
> Sure. I think Gavin wants some kind of wider memory pool limiter policy
> which would encompass such a thing already.
>

Yes.

I don't want to spend any time thinking about memory pool transaction
replacement until after we pay some technical debt:

+ Memory-limited memory pool, with relay policy matching block-creation
policy
+ Child-pays-for-parent fees
+ Auto-computed fees, based on transactions moving from the memory pool
into blocks


-- 
--
Gavin Andresen