Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 822A3990 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 20:43:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-yk0-f169.google.com (mail-yk0-f169.google.com [209.85.160.169]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F1EBFD for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 20:43:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ykdv3 with SMTP id v3so113210649ykd.0 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:43:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jtimon_cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=yf7+rXR+f5KSJtJ7cGuQ8tXAmiySAjMrn48XUSnB8io=; b=Y/Ctcm2HSGPbEhxmBP2x7l1oYafe/B5zF0ctavyGJTuFAeDI+IZaYSCdGK6bus1Bdp EVrH3msDqWPUcDzJMfkK+h222n4uXs/iq4mNq5Pj3huEJ6ei9gbl1XQIcGMhS0Xw/DyW a6drlz6VbXx7Ukf2XoKjLw88ZnJvIlll7+7H7arDzjE0lrgFn70RBhforLaLk56ytbrg 9cVQCpGBeO0/cnRtBd6uiBYjomv1xeMDQYjfrQWbcZYm01li+DZOMT5bD6z1WlBWavI7 zZj4V5ye328OuAZGqAJzzTudBQrIE/KlV0FeLkYQtxSHjynEtkcUpZE4LLSQ1UMOPTfk jbaQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=yf7+rXR+f5KSJtJ7cGuQ8tXAmiySAjMrn48XUSnB8io=; b=F9EW++2m9QOQNn6ZHQHxRBKQafOwf4GEOKmLGrQrEndaIPkX/4OkcH1dPBD9J0H7+Z hYmugfh2mSn23fY+xIxxU4u3DqmC/QFnHuOLXf2M7EUBuGPHy69lUbAssY5qOtYDCl94 oWCkSH58UZGsdQXro/Xr0ZRolMMfZB9eg9QATKmgz+a8oo6IeO6sV/rVJZiq+Cdx1ipa hO2kbAJyZ5/FIYiN+9gYKirND0DN2cTxqUmSQS1de0OKwgwRROpWtw8OGbdRVDdl+1m+ 22zwsmaXo3PXPRx17/gcpLDexiVTUv7LyaSkKhG2RrA3e+uLUBr8NlqGjvh68m4oAybO fp7Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkHDBGYAX4isZk/vYxoWbvOp//LOAh8fjzKaxOkUkvQLxJYtVkRmH1DyLYAUKrN5huEOjc6 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.129.111.3 with SMTP id k3mr15356951ywc.53.1447360997381; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:43:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.31.132.147 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:43:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201511122012.29966.luke@dashjr.org> References: <5644ECE6.9090304@mattcorallo.com> <201511122012.29966.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:43:17 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Luke Dashjr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Upcoming Transaction Priority Changes 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, 12 Nov 2015 20:43:18 -0000 On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:47:50 PM Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> * Mining code will use starting priority for ease of implementation > > This should be optional, at least for 0.12. The ease of implementation is not gained if it's maintained optionally. >> * Default block priority size will be 0 > > We should not be influencing miner policy by changing defaults. I agree changing policy defaults is meaningless, but in this case it is supposed to signal deprecation of the policy option. On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Chun Wang via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I would think about to merge the priority, feerate, and probably > sigoprate into one number, probably 576 priorities trade for 1 satoshi > per kb? I am in favor of having customizable cost (currently tx size but it has been proposed to also include sigoprate) and reward (currently feerate). The main problem I see for keep maintaining the code is that priority is not integrated in the reward function and cannot easily be with its current functionality unchanged (which slows down other very necessary improvements in the mempool limits).