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
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
|
Return-Path: <jgarzik@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82E5093E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 11 Jul 2015 22:29:09 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com
[209.85.212.174])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B313BF4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 11 Jul 2015 22:29:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wiga1 with SMTP id a1so40176898wig.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=DU7L5EYVtLnstGT+AQJvDFqAxuF+mwwJEYoLFy6uvDg=;
b=u4qPmhUHQjid0SIfkG0UbV4gfSHtXnUJ1qmY/eF+YocTxUKm/yaKznbIwhp1o3qRYA
xxbYup5o6kO/ENfD89Z6Q3yppvdapC3eFZeeNtSRy+pQiVfG7dRsc5Q5swaCf+xM5b49
TrUf+LZqnu1cTNPv+FPq9ZYrQ9IMu7wvKNa/Tg7nWcm4Gc1xrGGM/TAYY7SCuwdxbKZg
aMi1NCH3V5Cnx9ZSugvMEfkV3x0VKRqxfAPCHFQPIC/fvBrJG2mDEJdm9a1N7drn1LJN
fWf4nnKRc7fzA4VZ16Q7Cbv7YIKQqfchSgdiDDs2GDr283ShMbR0X+rcYzPQEI5CiqT5
Nu6w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.58.7 with SMTP id m7mr51780608wjq.109.1436653747506;
Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.140.196 with HTTP; Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAUFj12JC1e7wY1M-_U_Kh5wQv8V4X0SeGGtONn7m8PcOEhp_Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6D3AACE5-D6CD-4785-8A55-F6DF0B94D927@ricmoo.com>
<CAPWm=eWH9rZpwJeK2tTdHH8+BWDU_Vam8oBtG0u49v2yZuYVfw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAE-z3OWMpCW51FjwT8409k_10Uj9Zq=H8AVUo5B6PfYBTQ_Axg@mail.gmail.com>
<201507102110.33706.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAAmoQf1B1nFfS6ZXOkvoJGTaPpbN_NDwOcwCw30MSbRwooSh4Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAUFj12JC1e7wY1M-_U_Kh5wQv8V4X0SeGGtONn7m8PcOEhp_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 17:29:07 -0500
Message-ID: <CADm_Wcaed61oWMGu_FVCeRUWOS6jfFvGwNGEwh9GymfrqgtQKQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>
To: DKBryant@gmail.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b86cf3e491546051aa10417
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why not Child-Pays-For-Parent?
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: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 22:29:09 -0000
--047d7b86cf3e491546051aa10417
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
It sounds like you are seeking transaction expiration from the mempool, not
CPFP.
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Dan Bryant <dkbryant@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think a compromise will be somewhere in the middle. I think most people
> would be OK with TXs that don't have enough fees for P2P transfer to stay
> in deadmans land. Most people are stuck in a situation where they payed
> enough to get it into (and keep it in) the pool, but not enough to get it
> out.
>
> If we could get CPFP that only worked on TXs that met the minimum
> threshold for peer propagation, then I think we would be in much better
> position to battle this spam flood.
>
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Micha Bailey <michabailey@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Right. The issue (AIUI) is that, right now, even though transactions are
>> evaluated for inclusion as a group with CPFP, they're not yet evaluated for
>> relaying as a unit, nor can they be, because the current p2p protocol
>> doesn't have a way to send multiple transactions in a single protocol
>> message to signify that they should be evaluated together.
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
--047d7b86cf3e491546051aa10417
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">It sounds like you are seeking transaction expiration from=
the mempool, not CPFP.<div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class=3D"gm=
ail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 4:30 PM, =
Dan Bryant <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:dkbryant@gmail.com" targ=
et=3D"_blank">dkbryant@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>I think a compromise will be somewhere =
in the middle.=C2=A0 I think most
people would be OK with TXs that don't have enough fees for P2P=20
transfer to stay in deadmans land.=C2=A0 Most people are stuck in a situati=
on
where they payed enough to get it into (and keep it in) the pool, but=20
not enough to get it out.<br><br></div>If we could get CPFP that only=20
worked on TXs that met the minimum threshold for peer propagation, then I
think we would be in much better position to battle this spam flood.<span =
class=3D""><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On=
Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Micha Bailey <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=
=3D"mailto:michabailey@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">michabailey@gmail.com</=
a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0=
px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">R=
ight.
The issue (AIUI)=C2=A0is that, right now, even though transactions are=20
evaluated for inclusion as a group with CPFP, they're not yet evaluated=
=20
for relaying as a unit, nor can they be, because the current p2p=20
protocol doesn't have a way to send multiple transactions in a single=
=20
protocol message to signify that they should be evaluated together.<div><di=
v><span></span><br></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div class=3D"gmail=
_extra"><br><br></div></span></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>
--047d7b86cf3e491546051aa10417--
|
