From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VZMBT-0002sV-LC for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:46:47 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.179 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.179; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f179.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com ([209.85.214.179]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VZMBS-00024O-SV for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:46:47 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id uy5so2375075obc.24 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 07:46:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.117.164 with SMTP id kf4mr522696obb.104.1382626001467; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 07:46:41 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.156.42 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 07:46:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20131024144358.GA17142@savin> References: <20131024143043.GA12658@savin> <20131024144358.GA17142@savin> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:46:41 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: LXD0z2eWlbg3OU7EH5YrMk8NO84 Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e015382b8acbec504e97db346 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: petertodd.org] 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1VZMBS-00024O-SV Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Making fee estimation better X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:46:47 -0000 --089e015382b8acbec504e97db346 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Well, miners are all supposed to be more or less equivalent - modulo differences in tx acceptance policies - so I'd hope that having out of bad fee mechanisms yet still broadcasting the TX isn't that common. If it was broadcasted, it should get mined in short order, otherwise things are going wrong. On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > Anyway, in what circumstance would a customer want an exclusive contract > with a miner? > I was thinking for transactions that aren't standard so have to be submitted to miners directly. --089e015382b8acbec504e97db346 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Well, miners are all supposed to be more or less equi= valent - modulo differences in tx acceptance policies - so I'd hope tha= t having out of bad fee mechanisms yet still broadcasting the TX isn't = that common. If it was broadcasted, it should get mined in short order, oth= erwise things are going wrong.

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertod= d.org> wrote:
Anyway, in what circumstance would a customer want an exclusive c= ontract
with a miner?

I was thinking for transa= ctions that aren't standard so have to be submitted to miners directly.=
--089e015382b8acbec504e97db346--