MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6D3AACE5-D6CD-4785-8A55-F6DF0B94D927@ricmoo.com>
References: <6D3AACE5-D6CD-4785-8A55-F6DF0B94D927@ricmoo.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:13:29 -0400
Message-ID: <CADm_WcZkH9fZD23MH8m4wXEnqqjmMg1mPFjeME+uHbMgPNViEw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>
To: Richard Moore <me@ricmoo.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043745111587e3051a87a7db
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why not Child-Pays-For-Parent?
Precedence: list

--f46d043745111587e3051a87a7db
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

CPFP is interesting, but it does not fully cover the case it is trying to
address:   If TX_a goes out without sufficient fee, sending out a new TX_b
will not help TX_a suddenly reach nodes/miners that ignored TX_a.


On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Richard Moore <me@ricmoo.com> wrote:

> Hey guys,
>
> With all the recent congestion and discussion regarding FSS-RBF, I was
> wondering if there good reasons not to have CPFP as a default policy? Or =
is
> it?
>
> I was also wondering, with CPFP, should the transaction fee be based on
> total transactions size, or the sum of each transaction=E2=80=99s require=
d fee? For
> example, a third transaction C whose unconfirmed utxo from transaction B
> has an unconfirmed utxo in transaction A (all of A=E2=80=99s inputs are c=
onfirmed),
> with each A, B and C being ~300bytes, should C=E2=80=99s transaction fee =
be 0.0001
> btc for the ~1kb it is about to commit to the blockchain, or 0.0003 btc f=
or
> the 3 transactions it is going to commit.
>
> I tried to test it out a few days ago, sending 0.0008 btc without any fee=
,
> then that utxo into another transaction w/ 0.0001 btc. It still hasn=E2=
=80=99t
> confirmed, which could be any of: a) CPFP doesn=E2=80=99t have enough has=
h power,
> b) the amounts are too small, c) the coins are too new, d) the fee should
> have actually been 0.0002 btc, e) the congestion is just too great; or so=
me
> combination.
>
> Just curious as whatnot=E2=80=A6
>
> Thanks,
> RicMoo
>
> .=C2=B7=C2=B4=C2=AF`=C2=B7.=C2=B8=C2=B8.=C2=B7=C2=B4=C2=AF`=C2=B7.=C2=B8=
=C2=B8.=C2=B7=C2=B4=C2=AF`=C2=B7.=C2=B8=C2=B8.=C2=B7=C2=B4=C2=AF`=C2=B7.=C2=
=B8=C2=B8.=C2=B7=C2=B4=C2=AF`=C2=B7.=C2=B8><(((=C2=BA>
>
> Richard Moore ~ Founder
> Genetic Mistakes Software inc.
> phone: (778) 882-6125
> email: ricmoo@geneticmistakes.com
> www: http://GeneticMistakes.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

--f46d043745111587e3051a87a7db
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">CPFP is interesting, but it does not fully cover the case =
it is trying to address: =C2=A0 If TX_a goes out without sufficient fee, se=
nding out a new TX_b will not help TX_a suddenly reach nodes/miners that ig=
nored TX_a.<div><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Richard Moore <span dir=
=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:me@ricmoo.com" target=3D"_blank">me@ricmoo.c=
om</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"marg=
in:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style=3D"wo=
rd-wrap:break-word"><div>Hey guys,</div><div><br></div><div>With all the re=
cent congestion and discussion regarding FSS-RBF, I was wondering if there =
good reasons not to have CPFP as a default policy? Or is it?</div><div><br>=
</div><div>I was also wondering, with CPFP, should the transaction fee be b=
ased on total transactions size, or the sum of each transaction=E2=80=99s r=
equired fee? For example, a third transaction C whose unconfirmed utxo from=
 transaction B has an unconfirmed utxo in transaction A (all of A=E2=80=99s=
 inputs are confirmed), with each A, B and C being ~300bytes, should C=E2=
=80=99s transaction fee be 0.0001 btc for the ~1kb it is about to commit to=
 the blockchain, or 0.0003 btc for the 3 transactions it is going to commit=
.</div><div><br></div><div>I tried to test it out a few days ago, sending 0=
.0008 btc without any fee, then that utxo into another transaction w/ 0.000=
1 btc. It still hasn=E2=80=99t confirmed, which could be any of: a) CPFP do=
esn=E2=80=99t have enough hash power, b) the amounts are too small, c) the =
coins are too new, d) the fee should have actually been 0.0002 btc, e) the =
congestion is just too great; or some combination.</div><div><br></div><div=
>Just curious as whatnot=E2=80=A6</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><di=
v>RicMoo</div><div><br></div><div>
<span style=3D"border-collapse:separate;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvet=
ica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing=
:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:n=
one;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">.=C2=B7=C2=B4=C2=AF`=C2=B7.=C2=B8=
=C2=B8.=C2=B7=C2=B4=C2=AF`=C2=B7.=C2=B8=C2=B8.=C2=B7=C2=B4=C2=AF`=C2=B7.=C2=
=B8=C2=B8.=C2=B7=C2=B4=C2=AF`=C2=B7.=C2=B8=C2=B8.=C2=B7=C2=B4=C2=AF`=C2=B7.=
=C2=B8&gt;&lt;(((=C2=BA&gt;<br><br>Richard Moore ~ Founder<br>Genetic Mista=
kes Software inc.<br>phone: <a href=3D"tel:%28778%29%20882-6125" value=3D"+=
17788826125" target=3D"_blank">(778) 882-6125</a><br>email:=C2=A0<a href=3D=
"mailto:ricmoo@geneticmistakes.com" target=3D"_blank">ricmoo@geneticmistake=
s.com</a><br>www:=C2=A0<a href=3D"http://GeneticMistakes.com/" target=3D"_b=
lank">http://GeneticMistakes.com</a></span>
</div>
<br></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>

--f46d043745111587e3051a87a7db--