MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAmoQf1B1nFfS6ZXOkvoJGTaPpbN_NDwOcwCw30MSbRwooSh4Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6D3AACE5-D6CD-4785-8A55-F6DF0B94D927@ricmoo.com>
	<CAPWm=eWH9rZpwJeK2tTdHH8+BWDU_Vam8oBtG0u49v2yZuYVfw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE-z3OWMpCW51FjwT8409k_10Uj9Zq=H8AVUo5B6PfYBTQ_Axg@mail.gmail.com>
	<201507102110.33706.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAAmoQf1B1nFfS6ZXOkvoJGTaPpbN_NDwOcwCw30MSbRwooSh4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 16:30:24 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAUFj12JC1e7wY1M-_U_Kh5wQv8V4X0SeGGtONn7m8PcOEhp_Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dan Bryant <dkbryant@gmail.com>
To: Micha Bailey <michabailey@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b10c8894a389e051aa03245
Cc: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why not Child-Pays-For-Parent?
Precedence: list
Reply-To: DKBryant@gmail.com

--047d7b10c8894a389e051aa03245
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I think a compromise will be somewhere in the middle.  I think most people
would be OK with TXs that don't have enough fees for P2P transfer to stay
in deadmans land.  Most people are stuck in a situation where they payed
enough to get it into (and keep it in) the pool, but not enough to get it
out.

If we could get CPFP that only worked on TXs that met the minimum threshold
for peer propagation, then I think we would be in much better position to
battle this spam flood.

On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Micha Bailey <michabailey@gmail.com> wrote:

> Right. The issue (AIUI) is that, right now, even though transactions are
> evaluated for inclusion as a group with CPFP, they're not yet evaluated for
> relaying as a unit, nor can they be, because the current p2p protocol
> doesn't have a way to send multiple transactions in a single protocol
> message to signify that they should be evaluated together.
>
>

--047d7b10c8894a389e051aa03245
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>I think a compromise will be somewhere in the middle.=
=C2=A0 I think most
 people would be OK with TXs that don&#39;t have enough fees for P2P=20
transfer to stay in deadmans land.=C2=A0 Most people are stuck in a situati=
on
 where they payed enough to get it into (and keep it in) the pool, but=20
not enough to get it out.<br><br></div>If we could get CPFP that only=20
worked on TXs that met the minimum threshold for peer propagation, then I
 think we would be in much better position to battle this spam flood.<br><d=
iv class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Jul 11, 201=
5 at 3:28 PM, Micha Bailey <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:michabai=
ley@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">michabailey@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote=
:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;bo=
rder-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Right.
 The issue (AIUI)=C2=A0is that, right now, even though transactions are=20
evaluated for inclusion as a group with CPFP, they&#39;re not yet evaluated=
=20
for relaying as a unit, nor can they be, because the current p2p=20
protocol doesn&#39;t have a way to send multiple transactions in a single=
=20
protocol message to signify that they should be evaluated together.<div cla=
ss=3D""><div class=3D"h5"><span></span><br></div></div></blockquote></div><=
/div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br></div></div>

--047d7b10c8894a389e051aa03245--