From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <1240902@gmail.com> Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFEA0943 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 20:20:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f170.google.com (mail-ig0-f170.google.com [209.85.213.170]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44DE41C7 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 20:20:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igbhv6 with SMTP id hv6so1510724igb.0 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:20:45 -0800 (PST) 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=CuZFb0C8g/SmcHOflRqXc3oQjcJ4yJoe8Qrhs7olkqg=; b=DVsqJKuSc8t+YcmF5XtnYVr+pxI7qNAnvBlKgd5epkRM07CEJgCtKCG7RDegBaB/BV ChXb7LILlLVG4OWozJ5KW7hzTGylb+neTkqEE7sDiW3hoLIZLbnuZDnTos6Vqdvy0EBv E7SWBj3ik98olGbKUDLQaOwF0VDOurQZjYDWSFfgWvX3YjcPmjaelon8z7P36MzDJy77 /SHP+u3OhnacVZylpOOXJFMzm0pi6O8ixmbjHuDNXQH/dQaPizi4gs9woO+CGjGcdEJX 4QHScMF+QQ2iwBlcVSs3kxFy16PoJ6OjHLGEtBIj56N8PljQ5gZn24q7Ftr8+xNtDTBR UUnw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.160.2 with SMTP id xg2mr28589730igb.54.1447359645574; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:20:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.107.4.138 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:20:45 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201511122012.29966.luke@dashjr.org> References: <5644ECE6.9090304@mattcorallo.com> <201511122012.29966.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 04:20:45 +0800 Message-ID: From: Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com> To: Luke Dashjr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 20:22:58 +0000 Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Upcoming Transaction Priority Changes 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: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 20:20:46 -0000 I doubt changing the default value is useful as casual mining had long dead, and pools all have their own customized policies. But I think change the priority size to 0 is the right way to do. The sort by priority part in the block is always the best place for spam nowadays. I would think about to merge the priority, feerate, and probably sigoprate into one number, probably 576 priorities trade for 1 satoshi per kb? On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:12 AM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:47:50 PM Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> With the mempool limiting stuff already in git master, high-priority >> relay is disabled when mempools are full. In addition, there was >> agreement to take the following steps for 0.12: >> >> * Mining code will use starting priority for ease of implementation > > This should be optional, at least for 0.12. > >> * Default block priority size will be 0 > > We should not be influencing miner policy by changing defaults. > > Luke > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev