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 82E5093E for ; Sat, 11 Jul 2015 22:29:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com [209.85.212.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B313BF4 for ; Sat, 11 Jul 2015 22:29:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wiga1 with SMTP id a1so40176898wig.0 for ; Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:29:07 -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=DU7L5EYVtLnstGT+AQJvDFqAxuF+mwwJEYoLFy6uvDg=; b=u4qPmhUHQjid0SIfkG0UbV4gfSHtXnUJ1qmY/eF+YocTxUKm/yaKznbIwhp1o3qRYA xxbYup5o6kO/ENfD89Z6Q3yppvdapC3eFZeeNtSRy+pQiVfG7dRsc5Q5swaCf+xM5b49 TrUf+LZqnu1cTNPv+FPq9ZYrQ9IMu7wvKNa/Tg7nWcm4Gc1xrGGM/TAYY7SCuwdxbKZg aMi1NCH3V5Cnx9ZSugvMEfkV3x0VKRqxfAPCHFQPIC/fvBrJG2mDEJdm9a1N7drn1LJN fWf4nnKRc7fzA4VZ16Q7Cbv7YIKQqfchSgdiDDs2GDr283ShMbR0X+rcYzPQEI5CiqT5 Nu6w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.58.7 with SMTP id m7mr51780608wjq.109.1436653747506; Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:29:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.140.196 with HTTP; Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:29:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <6D3AACE5-D6CD-4785-8A55-F6DF0B94D927@ricmoo.com> <201507102110.33706.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 17:29:07 -0500 Message-ID: From: Jeff Garzik To: DKBryant@gmail.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b86cf3e491546051aa10417 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: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 22:29:09 -0000 --047d7b86cf3e491546051aa10417 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 It sounds like you are seeking transaction expiration from the mempool, not CPFP. On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Dan Bryant 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 > 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 > > --047d7b86cf3e491546051aa10417 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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.=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, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Micha Bailey <michabailey@gmail.com> wrote:
R= ight. 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.




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


--047d7b86cf3e491546051aa10417--