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 1048AB13 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:13:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B51CE3 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:13:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicmv11 with SMTP id mv11so17824957wic.1 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 09:13:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Jn9Ikj0C+SriwpRSThme5YaReoExmbvKLI0OcAILeng=; b=Smj3Ebc8w2gztkK+TWVU5LuGGA9PZ9EajlJ/dsQvCXsX0nbBwYgEU3C4cZ2GNESiUB yX2Y2RUg6OQqnBoYBTa5X0ESqtH7S4x7jTfx/RP/W4Te0qevRCQWGiPJPhHjKF+jaB21 kPbfuAwBoJMgBMMz5uR82iA1tFl/O+eO40medLJnNMbVQGaihDN6rn3tnLXbxCk2V2e6 /Hn6WpOVp5HaeD5qs+X15nYTLW6vEnxKMx1/Or0mixpIbQo2cxsQSeo9kgl7TH/P/jtL OllXiVsh+1f66I2unqKmEL9cYX3OOLc8+OiQyCzhDIyLCVqtgebi0vSacDsRXiqhXnLV 5DYA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.79.162 with SMTP id k2mr7690284wix.46.1436544809664; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 09:13:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.140.196 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 09:13:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6D3AACE5-D6CD-4785-8A55-F6DF0B94D927@ricmoo.com> References: <6D3AACE5-D6CD-4785-8A55-F6DF0B94D927@ricmoo.com> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:13:29 -0400 Message-ID: From: Jeff Garzik To: Richard Moore Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043745111587e3051a87a7db 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 List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:13:32 -0000 --f46d043745111587e3051a87a7db Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 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=E2=80=99s require= d fee? For > example, a third transaction C whose unconfirmed utxo from transaction B > has an unconfirmed utxo in transaction A (all of A=E2=80=99s inputs are c= onfirmed), > with each A, B and C being ~300bytes, should C=E2=80=99s transaction fee = be 0.0001 > btc for the ~1kb it is about to commit to the blockchain, or 0.0003 btc f= or > 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=E2= =80=99t > confirmed, which could be any of: a) CPFP doesn=E2=80=99t have enough has= h 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 so= me > combination. > > Just curious as whatnot=E2=80=A6 > > Thanks, > RicMoo > > .=C2=B7=C2=B4=C2=AF`=C2=B7.=C2=B8=C2=B8.=C2=B7=C2=B4=C2=AF`=C2=B7.=C2=B8= =C2=B8.=C2=B7=C2=B4=C2=AF`=C2=B7.=C2=B8=C2=B8.=C2=B7=C2=B4=C2=AF`=C2=B7.=C2= =B8=C2=B8.=C2=B7=C2=B4=C2=AF`=C2=B7.=C2=B8><(((=C2=BA> > > 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 > > --f46d043745111587e3051a87a7db Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
CPFP is interesting, but it does not fully cover the case = it is trying to address: =C2=A0 If TX_a goes out without sufficient fee, se= nding out a new TX_b will not help TX_a suddenly reach nodes/miners that ig= nored TX_a.


On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Richard Moore <me@ricmoo.c= om> wrote:
Hey guys,

With all the re= cent 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 b= ased on total transactions size, or the sum of each transaction=E2=80=99s r= equired fee? For example, a third transaction C whose unconfirmed utxo from= transaction B has an unconfirmed utxo in transaction A (all of A=E2=80=99s= inputs are confirmed), with each A, B and C being ~300bytes, should C=E2= =80=99s 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/ 0.000= 1 btc. It still hasn=E2=80=99t confirmed, which could be any of: a) CPFP do= esn=E2=80=99t 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=E2=80=A6

Thanks,
RicMoo

.=C2=B7=C2=B4=C2=AF`=C2=B7.=C2=B8= =C2=B8.=C2=B7=C2=B4=C2=AF`=C2=B7.=C2=B8=C2=B8.=C2=B7=C2=B4=C2=AF`=C2=B7.=C2= =B8=C2=B8.=C2=B7=C2=B4=C2=AF`=C2=B7.=C2=B8=C2=B8.=C2=B7=C2=B4=C2=AF`=C2=B7.= =C2=B8><(((=C2=BA>

Richard Moore ~ Founder
Genetic Mista= kes Software inc.
phone: (778) 882-6125
email:=C2=A0ricmoo@geneticmistake= s.com
www:=C2=A0http://GeneticMistakes.com


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--f46d043745111587e3051a87a7db--