Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z3IiC-0001kV-0N for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 06:45:08 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.192.41 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.192.41; envelope-from=voisine@gmail.com; helo=mail-qg0-f41.google.com; Received: from mail-qg0-f41.google.com ([209.85.192.41]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z3Ii7-0000Te-1L for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 06:45:07 +0000 Received: by qgf75 with SMTP id 75so8791982qgf.1 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 23:44:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.238.22 with SMTP id j22mr17122830qhc.98.1434091497611; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 23:44:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.91.37 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 23:44:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20150611131048.GA24053@savin.petertodd.org> <5579C0FE.8080701@thinlink.com> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 23:44:57 -0700 Message-ID: From: Aaron Voisine To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113594ee4a696505184c72c9 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 (voisine[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 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: 1Z3Ii7-0000Te-1L Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: SPV Fee Discovery mechanism 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: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 06:45:08 -0000 --001a113594ee4a696505184c72c9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 One possible solution that wallets could adopt when blocks fill up, would be to abandon the p2p network for transaction propagation altogether, and instead work directly with a handful of the largest miners and pools to get transactions into blocks. The miners could auction off space in their blocks with the guarantee that they will be included in the order accepted. We'd lose the peer-to-peer nature of sending transactions for a federated service operator style model, but avoid the problem of unpredictable transaction failure. Also, unlike replace-by-fee, this would allow for a send-and-forget usage pattern, as well as known up-front fees. Something like this is certainly what I imagine the large hosted wallet companies will end up moving to. Aaron On Thursday, June 11, 2015, Mike Hearn wrote: > > Re: "dropped in an unpredictable way" - transactions would be dropped >> > lowest fee/KB first, a completely predictable way. >> >> Quite agreed. > > > No, Aaron is correct. It's unpredictable from the perspective of the user > sending the transaction, and as they are the ones picking the fees, that is > what matters. > -- Aaron Voisine co-founder and CEO breadwallet.com --001a113594ee4a696505184c72c9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable One possible solution that wallets could adopt when blocks fill up,=C2=A0wo= uld be to abandon the p2p network for transaction=C2=A0propagation altogeth= er, and instead work directly with a handful of the largest miners and pool= s to get transactions into blocks. The miners could auction off space in th= eir blocks with the guarantee that they=C2=A0will be included in the order = accepted. We'd lose the peer-to-peer nature of sending transactions for= a federated service operator style model, but=C2=A0avoid the problem of=C2= =A0unpredictable transaction failure.=C2=A0Also, unlike replace-by-fee, thi= s would allow for a=C2=A0send-and-forget usage pattern, as well as=C2=A0kno= wn up-front fees. Something like this is certainly what I=C2=A0imagine the = large=C2=A0hosted wallet companies will end up=C2=A0moving to.

Aaron

On Thursday, June 11, 2015, Mike He= arn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> Re: = "dropped in an unpredictable way" - transactions would be dropped=
> lowest fee/KB first, a completely predictable way.

Quite agreed.=C2=A0

No, Aaron is co= rrect. It's unpredictable from the perspective of the user sending the = transaction, and as they are the ones picking the fees, that is what matter= s.


--

Aaron Voisine
co-founder and CEO
breadwallet.com
<= br> --001a113594ee4a696505184c72c9--