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 568FFBB3 for ; Sat, 11 Jul 2015 21:30:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ie0-f175.google.com (mail-ie0-f175.google.com [209.85.223.175]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74083175 for ; Sat, 11 Jul 2015 21:30:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iebmu5 with SMTP id mu5so214461926ieb.1 for ; Sat, 11 Jul 2015 14:30:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=NP43RN5uHAuOpP+bhAXrZWnQWj2SbJEnpepskO/e9Fs=; b=V+fvFZAkHhR5UKTzYSDJ4S8SBxCVm7b+BnETVUlpn5fqEzDvryXPxXDzhFETl+GiN2 N+OmnhBItsf0qYhg7ENPYSe115eEBqZsD0G3mobwHGT4IwCkQmII665aT2wbhxJRTfiR 0pcyoSH+EjA3k6kxJlBxcymDqKmKSUPLwZfKOwCL00ZaI2QY0Dw1CxyrWN1s950SyzKs hgpeb1gctU5PFnrUcmEW4whrSVSzUQnQTI7ZPhE9NSqwxxD/FOgnq3JjJ4O0NARgxtBm t2g41eNC/l/I069bR52MzW8AEkOrifNPUagxnk4JuVNYWgs+nSS5Owf2np48FzzRfEoX 5xmg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.97.33 with SMTP id dx1mr4811039igb.1.1436650224365; Sat, 11 Jul 2015 14:30:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.17.212 with HTTP; Sat, 11 Jul 2015 14:30:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <6D3AACE5-D6CD-4785-8A55-F6DF0B94D927@ricmoo.com> <201507102110.33706.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 16:30:24 -0500 Message-ID: From: Dan Bryant To: Micha Bailey Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b10c8894a389e051aa03245 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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 Cc: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why not Child-Pays-For-Parent? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: DKBryant@gmail.com List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 21:30:28 -0000 --047d7b10c8894a389e051aa03245 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I think a compromise will be somewhere in the middle. I think most people would be OK with TXs that don't have enough fees for P2P transfer to stay in deadmans land. Most people are stuck in a situation where they payed enough to get it into (and keep it in) the pool, but not enough to get it out. If we could get CPFP that only worked on TXs that met the minimum threshold for peer propagation, then I think we would be in much better position to battle this spam flood. On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Micha Bailey wrote: > Right. The issue (AIUI) is that, right now, even though transactions are > evaluated for inclusion as a group with CPFP, they're not yet evaluated for > relaying as a unit, nor can they be, because the current p2p protocol > doesn't have a way to send multiple transactions in a single protocol > message to signify that they should be evaluated together. > > --047d7b10c8894a389e051aa03245 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think a compromise will be somewhere in the middle.= =C2=A0 I think most people would be OK with TXs that don't have enough fees for P2P=20 transfer to stay in deadmans land.=C2=A0 Most people are stuck in a situati= on where they payed enough to get it into (and keep it in) the pool, but=20 not enough to get it out.

If we could get CPFP that only=20 worked on TXs that met the minimum threshold for peer propagation, then I think we would be in much better position to battle this spam flood.

On Sat, Jul 11, 201= 5 at 3:28 PM, Micha Bailey <michabailey@gmail.com> wrote= :
Right. The issue (AIUI)=C2=A0is that, right now, even though transactions are=20 evaluated for inclusion as a group with CPFP, they're not yet evaluated= =20 for relaying as a unit, nor can they be, because the current p2p=20 protocol doesn't have a way to send multiple transactions in a single= =20 protocol message to signify that they should be evaluated together.

<= /div>


--047d7b10c8894a389e051aa03245--