Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65DC0B19 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:52:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f48.google.com (mail-pa0-f48.google.com [209.85.220.48]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 141862A2 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:51:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by padck2 with SMTP id ck2so45414191pad.0 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:51:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Jc1ZTEXJ9Aj2C0kQ0ZKRmUx6p6VcGiBAvPo5Sbv77M8=; b=J5npPUC8xALz14wDL+JYmfUt5sO/n2cwui4TkvyRzIK3UgV+UWmkYnZC0ghPVwZIt7 7NSNiXEmHFP4RY7Us1caqqRqv1TYfSsf4ltyByi0zaYUYa0r7ht1xI00cG5ndCgmZ8d7 wLTGblI23HW4zLMiJIcG/A3KgPIQ74iA6P0L1YExLAt/lMiFCRuH5DElbZRMaEjxs4TX mZ4666knry7LwsH1tI8Tv5usurtM0zaCB4rn08SIaRlivhsbtYLBXKl9akuk7UNQv/BE hUBLaLnlPnvvcM8lxti2d3tl19Dfh2GmdSDKsGdCDeN7CkROhfuIJjT0gdRJWwLe3ieH lPEQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkrxj9UbmD6k2855NQ2aG2mRxGQOAXZMiZLvNwOXSNHmYeZ6j26S/OWnNTaaAllW45gRUaJ X-Received: by 10.66.139.138 with SMTP id qy10mr20925293pab.30.1437065519674; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:51:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.100.1.239] ([204.58.254.99]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id he9sm8523413pbc.7.2015.07.16.09.51.57 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:51:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55A7E0F2.2030400@thinlink.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:50:58 -0700 From: Tom Harding User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <55A5A837.1090203@thinlink.com> <2272402.KPsXmgHuuj@coldstorage> <55A6E98C.3090307@thinlink.com> <2509294.8eWsy7oNj2@coldstorage> In-Reply-To: <2509294.8eWsy7oNj2@coldstorage> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Mempool "Expected Byte Stay" policy X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:52:00 -0000 On 7/16/2015 2:38 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Wednesday 15. July 2015 16.15.24 Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> On 7/15/2015 12:18 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote: >>> On Tuesday 14. July 2015 17.24.23 Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote: >>>> Rule 2: A transaction and its dependents are evicted on its 2-hour >>>> anniversary, whether space is required or not >>> Instead of 2 hours, why not a number of blocks? >> So users/wallets can know when they should rebroadcast and consider >> increasing the fee. >> >> >> Using 12 blocks, there is a 5% chance he has to wait 3 hours.* >> >> Using 120 minutes, there is only a .23% chance that fewer than 4 blocks >> have occurred.** > Using the good old saying; results in the past are no indication of the > future. > I see a logic error in your thinking. > > Your assumption that time is a better indicator is false. Naturally time > itself is universal, but blocks are known by wallets too. Its just as good. > > This assumption of yours leans heavily on block mining times, and that is > not guaranteed in the future. Imagine one day half the miners dropping and > blocks take much longer for a week or so. Your assumptions just broke the > mempool. > It's not a question of right vs. wrong. Either method has consequences for user expectations and behavior. With fixed-block mempool expiration, the expiration time is variable. User can get an alert, but at an unpredictable time. With fixed-timeout, the likelihood of expiration is more variable (expiration occurrence is unpredictable regardless), but any expiration will occur at the timeout.