public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: SPV Fee Discovery mechanism
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:10:22 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5579C0FE.8080701@thinlink.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150611131048.GA24053@savin.petertodd.org>

On 6/11/2015 6:10 AM, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 02:18:30PM -0700, Aaron Voisine wrote:
>> The other complication is that this will tend to be a lagging indicator
>> based on network congestion from the last time you connected. If we assume
>> that transactions are being dropped in an unpredictable way when blocks are
>> full, knowing the network congestion *right now* is critical, and even then
>> you just have to hope that someone who wants that space more than you do
>> doesn't show up after you disconnect.
> Hence the need for ways to increase fees on transactions after initial
> broadcast like replace-by-fee and child-pays-for-parent.
>
> Re: "dropped in an unpredictable way" - transactions would be dropped
> lowest fee/KB first, a completely predictable way.

Quite agreed.  Also, transactions with unconfirmed inputs should be 
among the first to get dropped, as discussed in the "Dropped-transaction 
spam" thread.  Like all policy rules, either of these works in 
proportion to its deployment.

Be advised that pull request #6068 emphasizes the view that the network 
will never have consistent mempool/relay policies, and on the contrary 
needs a framework that supports and encourages pluggable, generally 
parameterized policies that could (some might say should) conflict 
wildly with each other.

It probably doesn't matter that much.  Deploying a new policy still 
wouldn't be much easier than deploying a patched version.  I mean, 
nobody has proposed a policy rule engine yet (oops).





  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-06-11 17:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-06-10 17:37 [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: SPV Fee Discovery mechanism Nathan Wilcox
2015-06-10 19:19 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-10 20:00   ` Nathan Wilcox
2015-06-10 20:03     ` Peter Todd
2015-06-11 18:30       ` Nathan Wilcox
2015-06-11 18:55         ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-13 15:38           ` Nathan Wilcox
2015-06-10 21:18     ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-10 20:26 ` Mike Hearn
2015-06-10 21:18   ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-11 10:19     ` Mike Hearn
2015-06-11 13:10     ` Peter Todd
2015-06-11 14:11       ` Martin Lie
2015-06-11 17:10       ` Tom Harding [this message]
2015-06-11 17:52         ` Mike Hearn
2015-06-12  6:44           ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-11 18:18       ` Nathan Wilcox

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=5579C0FE.8080701@thinlink.com \
    --to=tomh@thinlink.com \
    --cc=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox