MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <201511122012.29966.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <5644ECE6.9090304@mattcorallo.com>
	<201511122012.29966.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 04:20:45 +0800
Message-ID: <CAFzgq-xZA7VApQJv-b9n12H+GmL7u4Qv_481UsHWNqXGn6NubA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Upcoming Transaction Priority Changes
Precedence: list

I doubt changing the default value is useful as casual mining had long
dead, and pools all have their own customized policies. But I think
change the priority size to 0 is the right way to do. The sort by
priority part in the block is always the best place for spam nowadays.
I would think about to merge the priority, feerate, and probably
sigoprate into one number, probably 576 priorities trade for 1 satoshi
per kb?

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:12 AM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:47:50 PM Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> With the mempool limiting stuff already in git master, high-priority
>> relay is disabled when mempools are full. In addition, there was
>> agreement to take the following steps for 0.12:
>>
>>  * Mining code will use starting priority for ease of implementation
>
> This should be optional, at least for 0.12.
>
>>  * Default block priority size will be 0
>
> We should not be influencing miner policy by changing defaults.
>
> Luke
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev