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 27C0EAB2 for ; Sat, 11 Jul 2015 23:19:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qg0-f51.google.com (mail-qg0-f51.google.com [209.85.192.51]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A709FF2 for ; Sat, 11 Jul 2015 23:19:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qgep37 with SMTP id p37so50912299qge.1 for ; Sat, 11 Jul 2015 16:19:14 -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:cc :content-type; bh=lXvJc22L9SEPNS73t7hT2tq+xCgSFbLRauLC8+CCVGM=; b=gs/RxwRJKrob+DKlqw29pgTs0+KhtN4wAKnHv7ujkv7q5S9DLeAfjFXbiqhSgv4g+B 6EMLWUoNV+3EkCxhR6HUE+exlf+vsRqq3VYy5b+8UGCsQIhuI7eFb5RJ+/w3I71YQ/9k DP8HIRA0tBzTcvTNvYLE85S2ZnFNcdl4wVAA1IL2VnStLdiuZ2YV6fyhlIVbGYF5Z642 8rQccgpzzpvFoJ8igFPNNct6GexJJCuW2+KgOy1tSB28qSvh6aeIxEF5Ho3H2hmJhKwl zMnvlxn167DxnpzB3rDx4cCUIhVh51H0ax8etIczZFIU2tMzJXC8lLgi0ubZZl/AKIgo b0WA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.86.137 with SMTP id p9mr19945248qgd.89.1436656754786; Sat, 11 Jul 2015 16:19:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.93.162 with HTTP; Sat, 11 Jul 2015 16:19:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <6D3AACE5-D6CD-4785-8A55-F6DF0B94D927@ricmoo.com> <201507102110.33706.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 00:19:14 +0100 Message-ID: From: Tier Nolan Cc: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c124368883f0051aa1b7b5 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,MISSING_HEADERS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.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 23:19:16 -0000 --001a11c124368883f0051aa1b7b5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 10:30 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. > Agreed. A lot of the functionality could be achieved by a system that works in most cases. Even if 100 transaction chains aren't supported, 3-5 transaction chains would give a significant fraction of the desired functionality. At the moment, a transaction is only added into the memory pool if it meets the relay threshold and spends transactions that are either in the memory pool or in a block. There is an orphan pool that can store up to 100 orphans. The same could be done for child pays for parent. A node could remember the last 100 transactions (up to 5000 bytes) that were rejected from the memory pool due to insufficient relay fees. This allows nodes to send a chain of transactions in a row. If the child is sent last, then the parent(s) will be in the unrelayed transaction pool. --001a11c124368883f0051aa1b7b5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On S= at, Jul 11, 2015 at 10:30 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.

A= greed.=C2=A0 A lot of the functionality could be achieved by a system that = works in most cases.=C2=A0 Even if 100 transaction chains aren't suppor= ted, 3-5 transaction chains would give a significant fraction of the desire= d functionality.

At the moment, a t= ransaction is only added into the memory pool if it meets the relay thresho= ld and spends transactions that are either in the memory pool or in a block= .

There is an orphan pool that can store up to 100 orphan= s.

The same could be done for child pays for parent.=C2= =A0 A node could remember the last 100 transactions (up to 5000 bytes) that= were rejected from the memory pool due to insufficient relay fees.

=
This allows nodes to send a chain of transactions in a row.=C2= =A0 If the child is sent last, then the parent(s) will be in the unrelayed = transaction pool.
--001a11c124368883f0051aa1b7b5--