MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <837A1D9C-FD4E-4DF7-BE6B-4C90EB07C0A7@ricmoo.com>
References: <6D3AACE5-D6CD-4785-8A55-F6DF0B94D927@ricmoo.com>
	<CADm_WcZkH9fZD23MH8m4wXEnqqjmMg1mPFjeME+uHbMgPNViEw@mail.gmail.com>
	<837A1D9C-FD4E-4DF7-BE6B-4C90EB07C0A7@ricmoo.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:26:22 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAUFj11UvRKDCUr+pJty5dd-8UhnQOh1g62kUoO7KEq5yyM1pA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dan Bryant <dkbryant@gmail.com>
To: Richard Moore <me@ricmoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why not Child-Pays-For-Parent?
Precedence: list
Reply-To: DKBryant@gmail.com

Some miners have voluntarily deployed CPFP.

I had a thread about it earlier this month where some other ideas got
tossed around.
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009304.html

The specific pull request to get it into the reference implementation
is still open based on a merge conflict
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1647

Peter Todd has another thread on RBF which you mentioned earlier
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2014-April/005620.html

There is also a beautiful example of CPFP in action from Eligius in
this transaction:
https://blockchain.info/tx/4cc3e2b6407ae8cdc1fd62cb3235f9c92654277684da8970db19a0169e44c68c

Follow the spent outputs and you will see the person is trying to
incentive the transaction by upping the fees of dependent
transactions.  It set in the mempool until Eligius won a block, then
it made it into the chain.  CPFP still works, but only in an Eligius
block (that I can see).  So it's better than nothing.