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 1YqrUi-0000Rk-2z for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 May 2015 23:15:48 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.192.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.192.49; envelope-from=voisine@gmail.com; helo=mail-qg0-f49.google.com; Received: from mail-qg0-f49.google.com ([209.85.192.49]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YqrUg-0007VG-Nl for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 May 2015 23:15:48 +0000 Received: by qgeb100 with SMTP id b100so43823599qge.3 for ; Fri, 08 May 2015 16:15:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.55.31.7 with SMTP id f7mr799270qkf.9.1431126941345; Fri, 08 May 2015 16:15:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.91.37 with HTTP; Fri, 8 May 2015 16:15:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <16096345.A1MpJQQkRW@crushinator> Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 16:15:41 -0700 Message-ID: From: Aaron Voisine To: Mark Friedenbach Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1147bae2f7af9f05159a34b2 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) 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 (voisine[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 0.7 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1YqrUg-0007VG-Nl Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step function 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: Fri, 08 May 2015 23:15:48 -0000 --001a1147bae2f7af9f05159a34b2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 That's fair, and we've implemented child-pays-for-parent for spending unconfirmed inputs in breadwallet. But what should the behavior be when those options aren't understood/implemented/used? My argument is that the less risky, more conservative default fallback behavior should be either non-propagation or delayed confirmation, which is generally what we have now, until we hit the block size limit. We still have lots of safe, non-controversial, easy to experiment with options to add fee pressure, causing users to economize on block space without resorting to dropping transactions after a prolonged delay. Aaron Voisine co-founder and CEO breadwallet.com On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote: > On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Aaron Voisine wrote: > >> This is a clever way to tie block size to fees. >> >> I would just like to point out though that it still fundamentally is >> using hard block size limits to enforce scarcity. Transactions with below >> market fees will hang in limbo for days and fail, instead of failing >> immediately by not propagating, or seeing degraded, long confirmation times >> followed by eventual success. >> > > There are already solutions to this which are waiting to be deployed as > default policy to bitcoind, and need to be implemented in other clients: > replace-by-fee and child-pays-for-parent. > --001a1147bae2f7af9f05159a34b2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
That's fair, and we've implemented child-pays-for-= parent for spending unconfirmed inputs in breadwallet. But what should the = behavior be when those options aren't understood/implemented/used?
=
My argument is that the less risky, more conservative defaul= t fallback behavior should be either non-propagation or delayed confirmatio= n, which is generally what we have now, until we hit the block size limit. = We still have lots of safe, non-controversial, easy to experiment with opti= ons to add fee pressure, causing users to economize on block space without = resorting to dropping transactions after a prolonged delay.

<= div>
Aaron Voisine
co-founder and CEO
breadwallet.com
=

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Mark Frieden= bach <mark@friedenbach.org> wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 3:43= PM, Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a clever way to tie block s= ize to fees.

I would just like to point out though that = it still fundamentally is using hard block size limits to enforce scarcity.= Transactions with below market fees will hang in limbo for days and fail, = instead of failing immediately by not propagating, or seeing degraded, long= confirmation times followed by eventual success.
<= div>
There are already solutions to this which are wai= ting to be deployed as default policy to bitcoind, and need to be implement= ed in other clients: replace-by-fee and child-pays-for-parent.

--001a1147bae2f7af9f05159a34b2--