From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z33do-0003uK-Ju for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:39:36 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of datamagi.no designates 80.65.61.66 as permitted sender) client-ip=80.65.61.66; envelope-from=martin@datamagi.no; helo=srv3.datamagi.no; Received: from [80.65.61.66] (helo=srv3.datamagi.no) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z33dl-00047U-7F for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:39:36 +0000 Received: from 146.82-134-66.bkkb.no ([82.134.66.146] helo=[192.168.1.2]) by srv3.datamagi.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Z33Cy-0003Bo-WE for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 16:11:53 +0200 Message-ID: <55799727.7090902@datamagi.no> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 16:11:51 +0200 From: Martin Lie User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bitcoin Dev References: <20150611131048.GA24053@savin.petertodd.org> In-Reply-To: <20150611131048.GA24053@savin.petertodd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS X-Headers-End: 1Z33dl-00047U-7F Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: SPV Fee Discovery mechanism X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:39:36 -0000 Peter Todd wrote: > Re: "dropped in an unpredictable way" - transactions would be dropped > lowest fee/KB first, a completely predictable way. It would be 'completely predictable' for whoever knew the state and policies of a miner's mempool, but from an end user's perspective that wouldn't matter much: The end users wouldn't know if their transaction(s) would make the cut or not, somewhere in the network, and by what time. They (obviously) won't know what miners will find the next block(s), they won't know the miners' mempool sizes, potential custom eviction policies, etc. I agree that this can be somewhat remedied by FSSRBF/CPFP, though, provided wallets give users a good (semi-automated?) interface for such transaction replacements/chains. -- Martin Lie