On Thursday, November 12, 2015 8:43:17 PM Jorge Timón wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:47:50 PM Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev
> > wrote:
> >> * Mining code will use starting priority for ease of implementation
> >
> > This should be optional, at least for 0.12.
>
> The ease of implementation is not gained if it's maintained optionally.
It has come to my attention maintaining the current priority algorithm is not
even expensive, so I think I'm inclined to NACK using starting priority
altogether. Since I am the mining maintainer for Core, I believe it's
reasonable for me to decide on maintenance tradeoffs...
Therefore, my goal in this matter will be to review #6357 in depth to be
merged, and follow up with #6898 based on the current default policies.
> >> * Default block priority size will be 0
> >
> > We should not be influencing miner policy by changing defaults.
>
> I agree changing policy defaults is meaningless, but in this case it
> is supposed to signal deprecation of the policy option.
This is a bad idea anyway, since priority is the best metric we have right now
for ensuring legitimate transactions get mined despite spam attacks.
Luke
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev