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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jeremy@taplink.co>) id 1VZcB3-0003Hb-50
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 25 Oct 2013 07:51:25 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of taplink.co
designates 50.117.27.232 as permitted sender)
client-ip=50.117.27.232; envelope-from=jeremy@taplink.co;
helo=mail.taplink.co;
Received: from mail.taplink.co ([50.117.27.232])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with smtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1VZcB2-0005Ul-4G for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 25 Oct 2013 07:51:25 +0000
Received: from laptop-air ([192.168.168.135]) by mail.taplink.co ;
Fri, 25 Oct 2013 00:58:40 -0700
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=----------TfzeJ1ywNlHQ804g1rR64T
To: "Peter Todd" <pete@petertodd.org>, "Gavin Andresen"
<gavinandresen@gmail.com>
References: <20131024143043.GA12658@savin>
<CANEZrP100Lg_1LcFMKx1yWrGTSFb5GZmLmXNbZjPGaiEgOeuwA@mail.gmail.com>
<20131024144358.GA17142@savin>
<CANEZrP1TfM+wYbGjUk3+8JJZs6cKZXdb57xGMc=hDr9dQjMMZA@mail.gmail.com>
<20131024145447.GA19949@savin>
<CABsx9T0T0v=HnRRr6BLKNQOFMBJWrhF4G4SOCJ9DidGJBB8Eow@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 00:51:22 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "Jeremy Spilman" <jeremy@taplink.co>
Organization: TapLink
Message-ID: <op.w5h2rwhcyldrnw@laptop-air>
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T0T0v=HnRRr6BLKNQOFMBJWrhF4G4SOCJ9DidGJBB8Eow@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/1.0 (Win32)
oclient: 192.168.168.135#jeremy@taplink.co#465
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
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: github.com]
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
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: 1VZcB2-0005Ul-4G
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: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 07:51:25 -0000
------------TfzeJ1ywNlHQ804g1rR64T
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Gavin, can you confirm the best place to read up on the discuss fee
estimation changes for v0.9?
I think fee estimation at its core is about providing a data point, or
even call it an API, which can be used however you see fit.
What parameters do I want to see in a 'fee estimation' API?
- 30 minutes vs 24 hours processing time
- Confidence Levels (50%/90%)
What properties does the result have?
- Is it globally consistent?
Talking about fees.. I read this:
https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/2961409 and there is so much there I
really liked.
Any pointers for reading more about the leading theories on transaction
fees? For example, how well do they correlate with network security? Are
we getting what we are paying for? :-)
------------TfzeJ1ywNlHQ804g1rR64T
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary=----------TfzeJ1ywNlHQ800YvarAZa
------------TfzeJ1ywNlHQ800YvarAZa
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-ID: <op.1382687482107.ea63da665d6b14ac@192.168.168.135>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<style type=3D"text/css">body { font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-size=
:13px}</style>
</head>
<body><div>Gavin, can you confirm the best place to read up =
on the discuss fee estimation changes for v0.9?</div><div><br></div><div=
>I think fee estimation at its core is about providing a data point, or =
even call it an API, which can be used however you see fit.</div><div><b=
r></div><div>What parameters do I want to see in a 'fee estimation' API?=
</div><div><br></div><div> - 30 minutes vs 24 hours processing time=
</div><div> - Confidence Levels (50%/90%)</div><div><br></div><div>=
What properties does the result have?</div><div> - Is it globally =
consistent?</div><div><br></div><div>Talking about fees.. I read this:
<a href=3D"https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/2961409">https://gist.g=
ithub.com/gavinandresen/2961409</a> and there is so much there I really =
liked.</div><div><br></div><div>Any pointers for reading more about the =
leading theories on transaction fees? For example, how well do they corr=
elate with network security? Are we getting what we are paying for? :-)<=
/div><div><br></div><br></body></html>
------------TfzeJ1ywNlHQ800YvarAZa--
------------TfzeJ1ywNlHQ804g1rR64T--
|
