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
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5353092
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 28 Oct 2015 07:14:48 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0995A1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 28 Oct 2015 07:14:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8678C38A5BF0;
Wed, 28 Oct 2015 07:13:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:151028:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::kvWYTz9A0Q3eFMry:efmtN
X-Hashcash: 1:25:151028:j@toom.im::JXfgNDC+nsTIWngd:b6zNT
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
Jonathan Toomim <j@toom.im>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 07:13:55 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.9-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; )
References: <291B85A6-D8D4-443B-B03B-C675CBEEC662@toom.im>
In-Reply-To: <291B85A6-D8D4-443B-B03B-C675CBEEC662@toom.im>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201510280713.56677.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
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] Composite priority: combining fees and
bitcoin-days into one number
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: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 07:14:48 -0000
On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 4:26:52 AM Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Assigning 5% of block space based on bitcoin-days destroyed (BDD) and the
> other 95% based on fees seems like a rather awkward approach to me. For
> one thing, it means two code paths in pretty much every procedure dealing
> with a constrained resource (e.g. mempool, CNB). This makes code harder
> two write, harder to maintain, and slower to execute.
This is all in the realm of node policy, which must be easy to
modify/customise in a flexible manner. So simplifying other code in a way that
makes the policy harder to configure is not a welcome change.
That is, by making the code simpler, if you make custom policies (such as the
current default) harder, it is better to leave the main code less simple.
Luke
|
