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 8A29D941 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:10:59 +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 2CA01128 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:10:59 +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 8146538A6E30; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:10:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:151112:jtimon@jtimon.cc::1ZKNeAzbzOuADRPL:QtLz X-Hashcash: 1:25:151112:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::U2z/8bmJchu=IZmH:of4y X-Hashcash: 1:25:151112:lf-lists@mattcorallo.com::AqkYm2aTRl2aE0eJ:wPkm From: Luke Dashjr To: Jorge =?utf-8?q?Tim=C3=B3n?= Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:10:45 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.9-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) References: <5644ECE6.9090304@mattcorallo.com> <201511122012.29966.luke@dashjr.org> 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="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <201511122110.47665.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 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 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Upcoming Transaction Priority Changes 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: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:10:59 -0000 On Thursday, November 12, 2015 8:43:17 PM Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > On Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:47:50 PM Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev > > wrote: > >> * Mining code will use starting priority for ease of implementation > >=20 > > This should be optional, at least for 0.12. >=20 > The ease of implementation is not gained if it's maintained optionally. It has come to my attention maintaining the current priority algorithm is n= ot=20 even expensive, so I think I'm inclined to NACK using starting priority=20 altogether. Since I am the mining maintainer for Core, I believe it's=20 reasonable for me to decide on maintenance tradeoffs... Therefore, my goal in this matter will be to review #6357 in depth to be=20 merged, and follow up with #6898 based on the current default policies. > >> * Default block priority size will be 0 > >=20 > > We should not be influencing miner policy by changing defaults. >=20 > I agree changing policy defaults is meaningless, but in this case it > is supposed to signal deprecation of the policy option. This is a bad idea anyway, since priority is the best metric we have right = now=20 for ensuring legitimate transactions get mined despite spam attacks. Luke