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 E18BB305 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 13:49:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk0-f181.google.com (mail-qk0-f181.google.com [209.85.220.181]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AEDDEA for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 13:49:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qkei195 with SMTP id i195so6421543qke.3 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 06:49:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IAxxiR1tWrP2V5ItOU/lp0+jqoeGO0bXgn/ULySBelg=; b=wm+i0EAnY8/B34MWqH2Lqv2psi/vWfmKCIrzulpeje+itvPgmCGHyMmamhHU4O4FnO EgODkyl8yeUCAX3C42AUjN8SzVUA5nrOkMU0c1tmbsYAdYZqrNHUv3Pxld+lix7JInNV 3vRRDSQJEYqqy1CAHjyK6jkjPmHBj6j5E3yJMdGEdefE/P8dg5sIitNVTB3GYRUdpJaG fnwi96m0Q9KdeVl0Kaja+P+hVisN9qhAGEqs6j/d7Qxu8lqZAexYgv4UM8UpWesg4fkz JeKGH3S57ro2vOttuuUzsk7Qvt0jvddr63Lyjz5e6q3NjM8uKDTuqCGAcSLzVShWUK5w LDyg== X-Received: by 10.140.82.72 with SMTP id g66mr26011637qgd.41.1435672192779; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 06:49:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18d:8301:36e:a4e6:d11:f664:5e5a? ([2601:18d:8301:36e:a4e6:d11:f664:5e5a]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id r81sm13082370qkr.2.2015.06.30.06.49.51 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 30 Jun 2015 06:49:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55929E7F.8020301@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:49:51 -0400 From: Chris Pacia User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <20150629050726.GA502@savin.petertodd.org> <5591E10F.9000008@thinlink.com> <20150630013736.GA11508@savin.petertodd.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP: Full Replace-by-Fee deployment schedule 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: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 13:49:54 -0000 On 06/30/2015 09:12 AM, Adam Back wrote: > It is correct to view first-seen miner and relay policy as > honour-based, though it is the current default. > > What would be the effect of IBLT on the first seen policy? It seems that if a miner has to broadcast extra data with his blocks because he's using full RBF and everyone else is using first-seen then his blocks are at a disadvantage in terms of propagation. That wouldn't make first-seen a hard consensus rule, but rather one rational miners are likely to follow. Or is this effect likely to be minimal?