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
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1VZM3M-0002VH-IJ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:38:24 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.173 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.173; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ob0-f173.google.com;
Received: from mail-ob0-f173.google.com ([209.85.214.173])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1VZM3K-0006PX-GZ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:38:24 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f173.google.com with SMTP id gq1so2388018obb.18
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 24 Oct 2013 07:38:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.78.227 with SMTP id e3mr2416293oex.5.1382625497058; Thu,
24 Oct 2013 07:38:17 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.156.42 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 07:38:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20131024143043.GA12658@savin>
References: <20131024143043.GA12658@savin>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:38:16 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: bmDHLaH0sEmyEvX5RPYaZTvlPCE
Message-ID: <CANEZrP100Lg_1LcFMKx1yWrGTSFb5GZmLmXNbZjPGaiEgOeuwA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0111bca49c18a904e97d95a1
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
for more information. [URIs: petertodd.org]
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1VZM3K-0006PX-GZ
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Making fee estimation better
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:38:24 -0000
--089e0111bca49c18a904e97d95a1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> Quick thought on how to make blockchain-based fee estimates work better
> in the context of out-of-band mining contracts: have miners advertise in
> their coinbase's what fees were actually paid, as opposed to appear to
> have been paid.
This is interesting, but I suppose some miners may have business models
that can't be easily summed up as a "fee" - like all-you-can-eat deals with
certain providers, or preference to certain kinds of transactions etc.
For the concern that estimation might force fees down too far if miners
include private transactions, I thought the estimates were calculated only
on broadcast transactions, so transactions that just appear in a block
won't ever influence the estimate?
--089e0111bca49c18a904e97d95a1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Peter Todd <span dir=3D"l=
tr"><<a href=3D"mailto:pete@petertodd.org" target=3D"_blank">pete@petert=
odd.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"g=
mail_quote">
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Quick thought on how to make blockchain-base=
d fee estimates work better<br>
in the context of out-of-band mining contracts: have miners advertise in<br=
>
their coinbase's what fees were actually paid, as opposed to appear to<=
br>
have been paid.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is interesting, but I =
suppose some miners may have business models that can't be easily summe=
d up as a "fee" - like all-you-can-eat deals with certain provide=
rs, or preference to certain kinds of transactions etc.</div>
<div><br></div><div>For the concern that estimation might force fees down t=
oo far if miners include private transactions, I thought the estimates were=
calculated only on broadcast transactions, so transactions that just appea=
r in a block won't ever influence the estimate?=C2=A0</div>
</div></div></div>
--089e0111bca49c18a904e97d95a1--
|
