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 B1BF4BDC for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:11:21 +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 97DE81B2 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:11:20 +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 9288D1080408; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:10:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:150710:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::i+JoyVEFsFbcinxN:cCP9K X-Hashcash: 1:25:150710:tier.nolan@gmail.com::wQm7udmbgYf=62XE:byZK From: Luke Dashjr To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:10:32 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.1-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) References: <6D3AACE5-D6CD-4785-8A55-F6DF0B94D927@ricmoo.com> 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-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201507102110.33706.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] Why not Child-Pays-For-Parent? 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: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:11:21 -0000 AFAIK the only thing holding it up is lack of unit tests. If anyone would like to implement those, I expect it'd be merged fairly soon. Then the problem is, as Jeff mentioned, getting the parent transactions relayed despite failing relay policy on their own. Luke