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 54DF4C12 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2017 22:20:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from APC01-SG2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-oln040092253048.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.92.253.48]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B723E403 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2017 22:20:53 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=live.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=3i1GxLWr2NIa2EL04tjCT4IpCVVBeFmIlSgD3PZNv9I=; b=uz+G7EZGV06Dwij04bBRXB1NMl6sVTj0P4yf4DaH/pNqq3W6t5JpbxIO37Fz0Mkv5rutLx2lGuSco1NxBqjQA5ttzITQtH8UzfIpKAPsdZVknvXyood90+GnuHcbCR+PM2IPQV589+ilj2QsSPALj8/KuE6SPztW+apsBJ3uwkxWgwGRQ8vzPd4yNJjoaFp+ejCq1LM6+wiIo90ZG08L1fHvB37OzxsVjUkQmPdGYHuzzTY3wb61XF6scUPLEnL8xd3w9jeSURSQ2XgvKOA7DkCH2LD1K2csWuqvSLC25+VrwojP17mc0UV4g3l0RhJbcGPjUwRorCv86tSje2sA9w== Received: from SG2APC01FT056.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.250.60) by SG2APC01HT100.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.251.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.20.302.6; Sun, 24 Dec 2017 22:20:51 +0000 Received: from PS2P216MB0179.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (10.152.250.51) by SG2APC01FT056.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.251.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.20.302.6 via Frontend Transport; Sun, 24 Dec 2017 22:20:50 +0000 Received: from PS2P216MB0179.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([10.171.225.19]) by PS2P216MB0179.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([10.171.225.19]) with mapi id 15.20.0345.016; Sun, 24 Dec 2017 22:20:50 +0000 From: Damian Williamson To: Luke Dashjr Thread-Topic: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 177: UTPFOTIB - Use Transaction Priority For Ordering Transactions In Blocks Thread-Index: AQHTfF9LLKeRKL7NBU+Lvna4nlU7zKNSFt0AgAD4daY= Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 22:20:50 +0000 Message-ID: References: , <201712240721.24971.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: <201712240721.24971.luke@dashjr.org> Accept-Language: en-AU, en-US Content-Language: en-AU X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:BF65E41D3F2D315C371CCB04C6E1996325A67F5E72A157AF1F663CE7EFCCD1AE; UpperCasedChecksum:08E7176659C9C06776080AA24B74019F0F8687AC303FB6E34F26EC792B3E397C; SizeAsReceived:7213; Count:47 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-tmn: [AnN6URr9o11xqA91ZhLh8+RTaFMm3Jgi] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; SG2APC01HT100; 6:dQXvF+XuVBXqLYrZnIJ0HN8Yei2lYvdDMlDZT2mhYG3fqnaErkwkIJX6yWuG6HYoRlJgQurvONldaSyHkJCYrL4lnIDsfaLghk2RXPfZZcJmYkhsbkOC4ZJngb5lelG/KfS1TYxfmxVkAvKc8zkjSAWurlAMbhzasK5XchhUEzvWnhbol6g1qtM/jt35u+Z3+nVr8l7tiTzRzXK3h466xonsRk3nLIb/lmJWoTCA+8ABCvyTBlrOE8dv4J2MzslJySFWQJ3PLbssyi1hKeCWOrMp3eHJzpV2apmSKoW1eFOsiR6OM24EZB69uGZ6WFnPga586P25x5PsVNDiZUb5Pc8u7H5w7QjZhlmruqqLIsI=; 5:WdVu2Ho+HdJ8T9poLvCG7V14rKl5CSoWyYgDYhrhmrgHrq8+3hdG5Nsy7GgKlu/EiJ3NvvnwHfJv+gSunp0rTjIfwxZx5ldwR1tg/LNIasaVgTbTsL+dddxwlMIx4gdb4Q48IMmlhgpOsHeavWD2GzwoTthVJ6DBpvWx9NGFcEs=; 24:C9fPyn2b1X1z6Xwnb/ZjwaM05vMJ4Sl8YOLliLadUZRE3NuCbJUmUtFoBr+PGdbp7FQnUZ5GcGbGtFW3To57CNeqwYmkyM40wV5DH+LiGUc=; 7:M/bJrCMGacw7iKeW3SCWY6vAxxTM6zN07Pa6RoXBn2zvV+sPHHrMSRVxVaC4x/JTwypDFlV7TUGIlFUYroPo4p7V1x/zy8CaqZVy2qQ5yW38m/3mgTGKUlRUMWIYzyTnmLYAhjt9iMH5zT8BXJdRK4nEo1nb9JBhgKnmRVlSBneswec84pxRqql5FneQAXpqWFdPsEKfU4V8mzyna987DFn7H/Z3/6O2jQKa+SH5z+/a490UB0p+YbE1jc87YEUh x-incomingheadercount: 47 x-eopattributedmessage: 0 x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(201702061074)(5061506573)(5061507331)(1603103135)(2017031320274)(2017031324274)(2017031323274)(2017031322404)(1601125374)(1603101448)(1701031045); SRVR:SG2APC01HT100; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: SG2APC01HT100: x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: fc36570b-b2d0-4cab-dede-08d54b1c9714 x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(444000031); SRVR:SG2APC01HT100; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000803101)(100110400095); SRVR:SG2APC01HT100; x-forefront-prvs: 05315CBE52 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(7070007)(98901004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1901; SCL:1; SRVR:SG2APC01HT100; H:PS2P216MB0179.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:; spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_PS2P216MB01796F03E182D783210DFF2B9D000PS2P216MB0179KORP_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: fc36570b-b2d0-4cab-dede-08d54b1c9714 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 24 Dec 2017 22:20:50.8219 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SG2APC01HT100 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, T_REMOTE_IMAGE 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: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 22:39:39 +0000 Cc: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 177: UTPFOTIB - Use Transaction Priority For Ordering Transactions In Blocks 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, 24 Dec 2017 22:20:55 -0000 --_000_PS2P216MB01796F03E182D783210DFF2B9D000PS2P216MB0179KORP_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My mistake, apologies all. - I honestly thought everyone just took the next available number and publ= ished up their BIP's. And, I see you have something of a master list. As a suggestion, would it be worth considering linking to some of that info= rmation in the list welcome email? Web search is not always your friend for= locating everything relevant. Regards, Damian Williamson ________________________________ From: Luke Dashjr Sent: Sunday, 24 December 2017 6:21:24 PM To: Damian Williamson Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 177: UTPFOTIB - Use Transaction Priority For= Ordering Transactions In Blocks BIP 177 is NOT assigned. Do not self-assign BIP numbers! Please read BIP 2: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0002.mediawiki [https://avatars0.githubusercontent.com/u/528860?s=3D400&v=3D4] bips/bip-0002.mediawiki at master =B7 bitcoin/bips =B7 GitHub github.com Abstract. A Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) is a design document providi= ng information to the Bitcoin community, or describing a new feature for Bi= tcoin or its ... Luke On Sunday 24 December 2017 2:57:38 AM Damian Williamson via bitcoin-dev wro= te: > BIP 177: UTPFOTIB - Use Transaction Priority For Ordering Transactions In > Blocks > > > This BIP proposes to address the issue of transactional reliability in > Bitcoin, where valid transactions may be stuck in the mempool for extende= d > periods. > > > There are two key issues to be resolved: > > > 1. The current transaction bandwidth limit. > 2. The current ad-hoc methods of including transactions in blocks > resulting in variable and confusing confirmation times for valid > transactions, including transactions with a valid fee that may never > confirm. > > > It is important with any change to protect the value of fees as these wil= l > eventually be the only payment that miners receive. Rather than an auctio= n > model for limited bandwidth, the proposal results in a stable fee for > priority service auction model. > > > I will post the full proposal up on to my blog in the coming days and, > re-review incorporating feedback that I have received on and off thread. > It would not be true to suggest that all feedback received has been > entirely positive although, most of it has been constructive. > > > The previous threads for this BIP are available here: > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-December/sub= je > ct.html > > > Regards, > > Damian Williamson --_000_PS2P216MB01796F03E182D783210DFF2B9D000PS2P216MB0179KORP_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

My mistake, apologies all.


 - I honestly thought everyo= ne just took the next available number and published up their BIP's.


And, I see you have something of = a master list.


As a suggestion, would it be wort= h considering linking to some of that information in the list welcome email= ? Web search is not always your friend for locating everything relevant.


Regards,

Damian Williamson

From: Luke Dashjr <luk= e@dashjr.org>
Sent: Sunday, 24 December 2017 6:21:24 PM
To: Damian Williamson
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 177: UTPFOTIB - Use Transaction Prior= ity For Ordering Transactions In Blocks
 
BIP 177 is NOT assigned. Do not self-assign BIP nu= mbers!

Please read BIP 2:

    https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0002.mediawiki
=
github.com
Abstract. A Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) is a design document providi= ng information to the Bitcoin community, or describing a new feature for Bi= tcoin or its ...


Luke


On Sunday 24 December 2017 2:57:38 AM Damian Williamson via bitcoin-dev wro= te:
> BIP 177: UTPFOTIB - Use Transaction Priority For Ordering Transactions= In
> Blocks
>
>
> This BIP proposes to address the issue of transactional reliability in=
> Bitcoin, where valid transactions may be stuck in the mempool for exte= nded
> periods.
>
>
> There are two key issues to be resolved:
>
>
>   1.  The current transaction bandwidth limit.
>   2.  The current ad-hoc methods of including transacti= ons in blocks
> resulting in variable and confusing confirmation times for valid
> transactions, including transactions with a valid fee that may never > confirm.
>
>
> It is important with any change to protect the value of fees as these = will
> eventually be the only payment that miners receive. Rather than an auc= tion
> model for limited bandwidth, the proposal results in a stable fee for<= br> > priority service auction model.
>
>
> I will post the full proposal up on to my blog in the coming days and,=
> re-review incorporating feedback that I have received on and off threa= d.
> It would not be true to suggest that all feedback received has been > entirely positive although, most of it has been constructive.
>
>
> The previous threads for this BIP are available here:
>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-December/subje=
> ct.html
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Damian Williamson
--_000_PS2P216MB01796F03E182D783210DFF2B9D000PS2P216MB0179KORP_--