1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
|
Return-Path: <ctpacia@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E18BB305
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 30 Jun 2015 13:49:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qk0-f181.google.com (mail-qk0-f181.google.com
[209.85.220.181])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AEDDEA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 30 Jun 2015 13:49:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by qkei195 with SMTP id i195so6421543qke.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 30 Jun 2015 06:49:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=IAxxiR1tWrP2V5ItOU/lp0+jqoeGO0bXgn/ULySBelg=;
b=wm+i0EAnY8/B34MWqH2Lqv2psi/vWfmKCIrzulpeje+itvPgmCGHyMmamhHU4O4FnO
EgODkyl8yeUCAX3C42AUjN8SzVUA5nrOkMU0c1tmbsYAdYZqrNHUv3Pxld+lix7JInNV
3vRRDSQJEYqqy1CAHjyK6jkjPmHBj6j5E3yJMdGEdefE/P8dg5sIitNVTB3GYRUdpJaG
fnwi96m0Q9KdeVl0Kaja+P+hVisN9qhAGEqs6j/d7Qxu8lqZAexYgv4UM8UpWesg4fkz
JeKGH3S57ro2vOttuuUzsk7Qvt0jvddr63Lyjz5e6q3NjM8uKDTuqCGAcSLzVShWUK5w
LDyg==
X-Received: by 10.140.82.72 with SMTP id g66mr26011637qgd.41.1435672192779;
Tue, 30 Jun 2015 06:49:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18d:8301:36e:a4e6:d11:f664:5e5a?
([2601:18d:8301:36e:a4e6:d11:f664:5e5a])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id r81sm13082370qkr.2.2015.06.30.06.49.51
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Tue, 30 Jun 2015 06:49:52 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <55929E7F.8020301@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:49:51 -0400
From: Chris Pacia <ctpacia@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <20150629050726.GA502@savin.petertodd.org> <5591E10F.9000008@thinlink.com> <20150630013736.GA11508@savin.petertodd.org>
<CALqxMTH_5rtOs=aSNiVrfsG_sqQDCnTr-8qBH3Qji+8g_dAMcQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTH_5rtOs=aSNiVrfsG_sqQDCnTr-8qBH3Qji+8g_dAMcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
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
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP: Full Replace-by-Fee deployment schedule
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 13:49:54 -0000
On 06/30/2015 09:12 AM, Adam Back wrote:
> It is correct to view first-seen miner and relay policy as
> honour-based, though it is the current default.
>
>
What would be the effect of IBLT on the first seen policy? It seems that
if a miner has to broadcast extra data with his blocks because he's
using full RBF and everyone else is using first-seen then his blocks are
at a disadvantage in terms of propagation. That wouldn't make first-seen
a hard consensus rule, but rather one rational miners are likely to
follow. Or is this effect likely to be minimal?
|
