From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Xj8EM-0008Je-RS for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:58:42 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.49; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-yh0-f49.google.com; Received: from mail-yh0-f49.google.com ([209.85.213.49]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Xj8EL-00052V-UK for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:58:42 +0000 Received: by mail-yh0-f49.google.com with SMTP id t59so394485yho.22 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 07:58:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.227.163 with SMTP id d33mr3398613yhq.85.1414508316570; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 07:58:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.133.82 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 07:58:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:58:36 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Alex Morcos Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b604d10bdbbd405067ce144 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gavinandresen[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1Xj8EL-00052V-UK Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reworking the policy estimation code (fee estimates) 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: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:58:43 -0000 --047d7b604d10bdbbd405067ce144 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Alex Morcos wrote: > > Do you think it would make sense to make that 90% number an argument to > rpc call? For instance there could be a default (I would use 80%) but then > you could specify if you required a different certainty. It wouldn't > require any code changes and might make it easier for people to build more > complicated logic on top of it. > RE: 80% versus 90% : I think a default of 80% will get us a lot of "the fee estimation logic is broken, I want my transactions to confirm quick and a lot of them aren't confirming for 2 or 3 blocks." RE: RPC argument: I'm reluctant to give too many 'knobs' for the RPC interface. I think the default percentage makes sense as a command-line/bitcoin.conf option; I can imagine services that want to save on fees running with -estimatefeethreshold=0.5 (or -estimatefeethreshold=0.95 if as-fast-as-possible confirmations are needed). Setting both the number of confirmations and the estimation threshold on a transaction-by-transaction basis seems like overkill to me. -- -- Gavin Andresen --047d7b604d10bdbbd405067ce144 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= ue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Alex Morcos <morcos@gmail.com> = wrote:
Do you think it = would make sense to make that 90% number an argument to rpc call?=A0 For in= stance there could be a default (I would use 80%) but then you could specif= y if you required a different certainty.=A0 It wouldn't require any cod= e changes and might make it easier for people to build more complicated log= ic on top of it.

RE: 80% versus= 90% : =A0I think a default of 80% will get us a lot of "the fee estim= ation logic is broken, I want my transactions to confirm quick and a lot of= them aren't confirming for 2 or 3 blocks."

RE: RPC argument: =A0I'm reluctant to give too many 'knobs' = for the RPC interface. I think the default percentage makes sense as a comm= and-line/bitcoin.conf option; I can imagine services that want to save on f= ees running with -estimatefeethreshold=3D0.5 =A0(or -estimatefeethreshold= =3D0.95 if as-fast-as-possible confirmations are needed). Setting both the = number of confirmations and the estimation threshold on a transaction-by-tr= ansaction basis seems like overkill to me.

-- --
Gavin Andresen
--047d7b604d10bdbbd405067ce144--