From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 702F5BAC for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 04:25:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F1CA228 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 04:25:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 13475108039B; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 04:24:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:150706:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::Kk0ecKa5YQBHHmw3:fCuk X-Hashcash: 1:25:150706:DKBryant@gmail.com::QccRO84oC8Jzhtc3:OsvK From: Luke Dashjr To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, DKBryant@gmail.com Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 04:24:55 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.14.41-gentoo; KDE/4.14.3; x86_64; ; ) References: <20150703215658.GC5916@muck> In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201507060424.57070.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] REQ BIP # / Discuss - Sweep incoming unconfirmed transactions with a bounty. X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 04:25:09 -0000 On Monday, July 06, 2015 4:14:14 AM Dan Bryant wrote: > When I wrote the BIP proposal I was assuming (incorrectly) that CPFP TX > selection was already being done by miners, No, this is correct. It's just not included in the reference policy. Miners are not expected to use the reference policy as-is, and some of them do in fact use CPFP. Luke