From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z360L-0007Tn-BP for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 17:11:01 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mail-qg0-f52.google.com ([209.85.192.52]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z360K-0007xA-Fk for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 17:11:01 +0000 Received: by qgf75 with SMTP id 75so3906298qgf.1 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:10:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=VGXNDTh0J/TdUTQ/ViU89RvP51at/V/huYC4ckdkHs4=; b=mVsWN0gvbFHY3GXHkmCQEw5yXFeXp+B/EiHw8FhhLHaWPkT+RNyz3O41mH8E8ptqG2 zpOObN+Ji4+qtsikYVZoOX/Cull6xuvvQ34qUolDYEPOTFIGB0ogUsp5wdO9fH9QK0Ns fY1k2Wi0TzUA/C3+zBzruqgBaGyJWX5oTwr4vmZVBi1LtAcVLZyNx7LGFMNTaoHRxxPW oWocg2anthKa2dAAnSpjg9sJ3aTOASO1R4W/vu5P/2mMdOnpaWBBuJZs3zmm1jo9TLZm AJvoeqxxdDG0MlEZrM1aJiwO5eQwLmyRpzJveSVg/5+UUNWG5SiDfET3h1JEgXByB4yG +bUA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnWm6WSldTSoJxmn9RrAn5Q5ht/2SSycYCdRbx3zoE8ZTKSS86BOzve0zZwhsB5zwCVCLLY X-Received: by 10.140.91.246 with SMTP id z109mr12746532qgd.39.1434042654993; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:10:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.100.1.239] ([204.58.254.99]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id i91sm495352qgd.46.2015.06.11.10.10.53 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:10:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5579C0FE.8080701@thinlink.com> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:10:22 -0700 From: Tom Harding 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-development@lists.sourceforge.net References: <20150611131048.GA24053@savin.petertodd.org> In-Reply-To: <20150611131048.GA24053@savin.petertodd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 0.6 RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB RBL: SORBS: sender is an abusable web server [204.58.254.99 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] X-Headers-End: 1Z360K-0007xA-Fk 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 17:11:01 -0000 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).