On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:13 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com> wrote:

CPFP is interesting, but it does not fully cover the case it is trying to address:   If TX_a goes out without sufficient fee, sending out a new TX_b will not help TX_a suddenly reach nodes/miners that ignored TX_a.

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Richard Moore <me@ricmoo.com> wrote:

Hey guys,

With all the recent congestion and discussion regarding FSS-RBF, I was wondering if there good reasons not to have CPFP as a default policy? Or is it?

I was also wondering, with CPFP, should the transaction fee be based on total transactions size, or the sum of each transaction’s required fee? For example, a third transaction C whose unconfirmed utxo from transaction B has an unconfirmed utxo in transaction A (all of A’s inputs are confirmed), with each A, B and C being ~300bytes, should C’s transaction fee be 0.0001 btc for the ~1kb it is about to commit to the blockchain, or 0.0003 btc for the 3 transactions it is going to commit.

I tried to test it out a few days ago, sending 0.0008 btc without any fee, then that utxo into another transaction w/ 0.0001 btc. It still hasn’t confirmed, which could be any of: a) CPFP doesn’t have enough hash power, b) the amounts are too small, c) the coins are too new, d) the fee should have actually been 0.0002 btc, e) the congestion is just too great; or some combination.

Just curious as whatnot…

Thanks,

RicMoo

.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><(((º>

Richard Moore ~ Founder
Genetic Mistakes Software inc.
phone: (778) 882-6125
email: ricmoo@geneticmistakes.com
www: http://GeneticMistakes.com

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev