From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2303C002D for ; Tue, 24 May 2022 19:48:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8382741A5C for ; Tue, 24 May 2022 19:48:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZNAi5s26krEC for ; Tue, 24 May 2022 19:48:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from azure.erisian.com.au (azure.erisian.com.au [172.104.61.193]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23E36419EC for ; Tue, 24 May 2022 19:48:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from aj@azure.erisian.com.au (helo=[127.0.0.1]) by azure.erisian.com.au with esmtpsa (Exim 4.92 #3 (Debian)) id 1ntaVk-0001ea-NX; Wed, 25 May 2022 05:48:12 +1000 Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 15:48:02 -0400 From: Anthony Towns To: Gloria Zhao , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: <20220518003531.GA4402@erisian.com.au> <20220523213416.GA6151@erisian.com.au> Message-ID: <2B3D1901-901C-4000-A2B9-F6857FCE2847@erisian.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score-int: -28 X-Spam-Bar: -- Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Package Relay Proposal X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 19:48:16 -0000 On 23 May 2022 9:13:43 pm GMT-04:00, Gloria Zhao = wrote: >> If you're asking for the package for "D", would a response telling you: >> txid_D (500 sat, 100vB) >> txid_A (0 sat, 100vB) >> txid_B (2000 sat, 100 vB) >> be better, in that case? Then the receiver can maybe do the logic >> themselves to figure out that they already have A in their mempool >> so it's fine, or not? >Right, I also considered giving the fees and sizes of each transaction in >the package in =E2=80=9Cpckginfo1=E2=80=9D=2E But I don=E2=80=99t think t= hat information provides >additional meaning unless you know the exact topology, i=2Ee=2E also know= if >the parents have dependency relationships between them=2E For instance, i= n >the {A, B, D} package there, even if you have the information listed, you= r >decision should be different depending on whether B spends from A=2E I don't think that's true? We already know D is above our fee floor so if = B with A is also above the floor, we want them all, but also if B isn't abo= ve the floor, but all of them combined are, then we also do? If you've got (A,B,C,X) where B spends A and X spends A,B,C where X+C is b= elow fee floor while A+B and A+B+C+X are above fee floor you have the probl= em though=2E Is it plausible to add the graph in? Cheers, aj --=20 Sent from my phone=2E