From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail•com>
To: Richard Moore <me@ricmoo•com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why not Child-Pays-For-Parent?
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:13:29 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADm_WcZkH9fZD23MH8m4wXEnqqjmMg1mPFjeME+uHbMgPNViEw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6D3AACE5-D6CD-4785-8A55-F6DF0B94D927@ricmoo.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1904 bytes --]
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> 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
> email: ricmoo@geneticmistakes•com
> www: http://GeneticMistakes.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2993 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-10 16:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-10 16:09 Richard Moore
2015-07-10 16:13 ` Jeff Garzik [this message]
2015-07-10 16:25 ` Richard Moore
2015-07-10 16:26 ` Dan Bryant
2015-07-10 16:28 ` Tier Nolan
2015-07-10 16:31 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-07-10 17:02 ` Justus Ranvier
2015-07-10 17:16 ` Dan Bryant
2015-07-10 17:51 ` Alex Morcos
2015-07-10 19:39 ` Tier Nolan
2015-07-10 21:10 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-07-11 20:28 ` Micha Bailey
2015-07-11 21:30 ` Dan Bryant
2015-07-11 22:29 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-07-12 10:18 ` Matt Whitlock
2015-07-11 23:19 ` Tier Nolan
2015-07-10 17:28 ` Tier Nolan
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=CADm_WcZkH9fZD23MH8m4wXEnqqjmMg1mPFjeME+uHbMgPNViEw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jgarzik@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=me@ricmoo$(echo .)com \
/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