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 287F8AF0 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2019 22:12:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vs1-f49.google.com (mail-vs1-f49.google.com [209.85.217.49]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49CA7709 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2019 22:12:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vs1-f49.google.com with SMTP id g127so6470287vsd.6 for ; Sun, 07 Apr 2019 15:12:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=A+26WiGQOOSD4WI3uV8g/Q6lffYhjAl2KwoQYXUQOak=; b=Amm3q4Id68Ogbp28grSfXqU4/SFAA8IBDW3hfL78Tg7syCono2bo0A2ByNJURsrwYn a9ZfOo2Gt2VHMK6YLFr1MxhPXInlr2JcD2k0SsOMovDM8E+72gEq4aT/d0WJGWXmIcao iEX6aTe0G4epF0BMPfiFdrRS3m+ywJ4KOuBT0sJABHFzwOHzFvROMIYaWc52+AK12M9s yddZxFzX18w2RdqXjZhCTnaZ72tVjeKHCC75seuzq2LwNF8ZkyInG2k9ZfjUdhwHHPA8 D29t/7S4DgTbH+SX4eEmoN9ASWVgNOZnlkDHt4JQBWiUf/3QQYfgNCzRQhoFwN5KRmI2 Ss3w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXnFwVLGf0UqspDb3oCxjTSKbbAGCpVd4GH/HAsmF7f2OE2GUiX CojZfXEF92YuXzREKKEjCoEWsLN3yTv/OhO9oI4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyE4raYwjWgQMOTHFKStsQSCNQmAx4mCAUrL7auJt3wG5nf+cc9Bz8GSsixPIZ2RrhoZ9HUSGHGZ4DBGCDEU8s= X-Received: by 2002:a67:ff11:: with SMTP id v17mr14595920vsp.108.1554675127423; Sun, 07 Apr 2019 15:12:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Bernd Jendrissek Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 00:11:55 +0200 Message-ID: To: simondev1 , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 01:50:39 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] new BIP: Self balancing between excessively low/high fees and block size X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2019 22:12:09 -0000 On Sun, 7 Apr 2019 at 17:45, simondev1 via bitcoin-dev wrote: > ==Implementation== > Sort transactions by FeeInSatoshiPerByte (lowest first) > For each transaction starting from lowest FeeInSatoshiPerByte: Sum up the bytes of space used so far. Check if summed up bytes of space used so far is smaller or equal than the formula result. > If this is valid for each transaction then the blocksize is valid. Doesn't this break CPFP? I think to avoid that you'll need to rework your proposed algorithm to treat chains of transactions as a group. (And note that you could have multiple transactions in one block that depend on the same "parent" transaction, also in the same block.)