Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.214.43 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.43; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-bk0-f43.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0PAG=2+GOiLWYgWH81q+eAQ4w3LdDDemQ9J0K0AddUw_w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+s+GJBo7iUEJTfJw2e6qcDmdHNGdDN442Svs5ikVyUL1Jm0Wg@mail.gmail.com>
	<201401161523.38623.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CA+s+GJDeV9-djdEsA_stznNK9zzBA_0xQFV_m6tVygJicuLWuQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<201401171841.37790.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAJHLa0MVY6f02hK1CofM7bjLM=V1V0XKCWvHjBz=ozQdvA+xYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<61c05e986b4d1010d0cf76868db7d2af.squirrel@fruiteater.riseup.net>
	<CA+s+GJCwB3Jj7z32_5NCHgf7utyx0nm-fXiSW+79w8u4mi7W5g@mail.gmail.com>
	<52DABC0D.8060900@monetize.io>
	<CAJHLa0PAG=2+GOiLWYgWH81q+eAQ4w3LdDDemQ9J0K0AddUw_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 11:24:08 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJDFq0P+cgAVL9N1ADT7PFB4eMSPnoSR05wPOB5KRL-C+g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf30223997e8ce7504f0502c92
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Core 0.9rc1 release schedule
Precedence: list

--20cf30223997e8ce7504f0502c92
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 3:53 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:

> There's a reason why luke-jr's pull request for CPfP remains open.
>


> There is general agreement that it appears to be useful.  CPfP works
> to close the mismatch between how bitcoin transaction fees are
> attached by the sender, versus modern economic situations where the
> receiver is willing to pay a fee.
>

The only thing controversial are the code changes themselves, not the
feature.

Consensus running through the comments in the pull is that it needs
(auto)tests.

Are you going to do this Luke? Or is anyone else working on this?

Wladimir

--20cf30223997e8ce7504f0502c92
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On S=
un, Jan 19, 2014 at 3:53 AM, Jeff Garzik <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"m=
ailto:jgarzik@bitpay.com" target=3D"_blank">jgarzik@bitpay.com</a>&gt;</spa=
n> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;p=
adding-left:1ex">There&#39;s a reason why luke-jr&#39;s pull request for CP=
fP remains open.<br>
</blockquote><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"ma=
rgin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,=
204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
There is general agreement that it appears to be useful. =C2=A0CPfP works<b=
r>
to close the mismatch between how bitcoin transaction fees are<br>
attached by the sender, versus modern economic situations where the<br>
receiver is willing to pay a fee.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The o=
nly thing controversial are the code changes themselves, not the feature.<b=
r></div><div><br></div><div>Consensus running through the comments in the p=
ull is that it needs (auto)tests.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Are you going to do this Luke? Or is anyone else workin=
g on this?</div><div><br></div><div>Wladimir</div><div><br></div></div></di=
v></div>

--20cf30223997e8ce7504f0502c92--