Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why not Child-Pays-For-Parent?

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1295 bytes --]

It sounds like you are seeking transaction expiration from the mempool, not
CPFP.



On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Dan Bryant <dkbryant@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 <michabailey@gmail.com>
> 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.
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2221 bytes --]