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 5353092 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 07:14:48 +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 F0995A1 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 07:14:47 +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 8678C38A5BF0; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 07:13:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:151028:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::kvWYTz9A0Q3eFMry:efmtN X-Hashcash: 1:25:151028:j@toom.im::JXfgNDC+nsTIWngd:b6zNT From: Luke Dashjr To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Jonathan Toomim Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 07:13:55 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.9-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) References: <291B85A6-D8D4-443B-B03B-C675CBEEC662@toom.im> In-Reply-To: <291B85A6-D8D4-443B-B03B-C675CBEEC662@toom.im> 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: <201510280713.56677.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 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] Composite priority: combining fees and bitcoin-days into one number 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: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 07:14:48 -0000 On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 4:26:52 AM Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Assigning 5% of block space based on bitcoin-days destroyed (BDD) and the > other 95% based on fees seems like a rather awkward approach to me. For > one thing, it means two code paths in pretty much every procedure dealing > with a constrained resource (e.g. mempool, CNB). This makes code harder > two write, harder to maintain, and slower to execute. This is all in the realm of node policy, which must be easy to modify/customise in a flexible manner. So simplifying other code in a way that makes the policy harder to configure is not a welcome change. That is, by making the code simpler, if you make custom policies (such as the current default) harder, it is better to leave the main code less simple. Luke