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 229CFBC8 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:39:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk0-f174.google.com (mail-qk0-f174.google.com [209.85.220.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAE75166 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:39:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qkcl188 with SMTP id l188so30509251qkc.1 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:39:15 -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=GnF0W1zoBVn2v7m0tg/fcv0pVPZmzMzVRQZJtMIGBZc=; b=K9fOBNUZ/xpiXtgI6oAqKSIUmeoLW2cQ8/qnPE7p8UO3fp2o7JQq47zboU5VlxzaPh J+vwmyLKnyWefu2rUxEuPot+JAwOO+W1KourO9BeDRj0QNcLKXijLjbzOwbTYwrMMm05 CT1DTAZ+aHNTjBtqvyaPxG8t3lfu7ziMCZ3EvfqcKp4UTOljDUEzwCIkSEwVWt58w4y9 THW9wYlcKaqCzQ7C0QAe65bZH9IugKZ1/Zdr7ETxri3cEaYzoku1QYUlBemybbz8Vo4y 0c2n4QTaNLv1mWj/2KP5x1D3LCLrk8K59jUnoBNF73fRZiMRAWz38KzzQophe6TMFaWY CWvw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.33.227 with SMTP id j90mr35369925qgj.6.1436557154918; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:39:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.93.162 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:39:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <6D3AACE5-D6CD-4785-8A55-F6DF0B94D927@ricmoo.com> <559FFAB3.2010309@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 20:39:14 +0100 Message-ID: From: Tier Nolan Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a7d02eb2eb7051a8a8653 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: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:39:16 -0000 --001a113a7d02eb2eb7051a8a8653 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 It depends on what kind of inefficiency. Inefficient could mean that it uses a lot of CPU power. If it gets a good solution rather than the best solution, it is still worth having. On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Alex Morcos wrote: > I think the biggest problem with merging CPFP right now is that at least > in its current implementation it is not efficient enough in certain > situations,. > --001a113a7d02eb2eb7051a8a8653 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It depends on what kind of inefficiency.=C2=A0 Ineffi= cient could mean that it uses a lot of CPU power.=C2=A0

If it= gets a good solution rather than the best solution, it is still worth havi= ng.

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Alex Morcos <morcos@gmail.com>= wrote:
I think t= he biggest problem with merging CPFP right now is that at least in its curr= ent implementation it is not efficient enough in certain situations,.
=
--001a113a7d02eb2eb7051a8a8653--