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
|
Return-Path: <tomh@thinlink.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65DC0B19
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:52:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pa0-f48.google.com (mail-pa0-f48.google.com
[209.85.220.48])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 141862A2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:51:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by padck2 with SMTP id ck2so45414191pad.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to
:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=Jc1ZTEXJ9Aj2C0kQ0ZKRmUx6p6VcGiBAvPo5Sbv77M8=;
b=J5npPUC8xALz14wDL+JYmfUt5sO/n2cwui4TkvyRzIK3UgV+UWmkYnZC0ghPVwZIt7
7NSNiXEmHFP4RY7Us1caqqRqv1TYfSsf4ltyByi0zaYUYa0r7ht1xI00cG5ndCgmZ8d7
wLTGblI23HW4zLMiJIcG/A3KgPIQ74iA6P0L1YExLAt/lMiFCRuH5DElbZRMaEjxs4TX
mZ4666knry7LwsH1tI8Tv5usurtM0zaCB4rn08SIaRlivhsbtYLBXKl9akuk7UNQv/BE
hUBLaLnlPnvvcM8lxti2d3tl19Dfh2GmdSDKsGdCDeN7CkROhfuIJjT0gdRJWwLe3ieH
lPEQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkrxj9UbmD6k2855NQ2aG2mRxGQOAXZMiZLvNwOXSNHmYeZ6j26S/OWnNTaaAllW45gRUaJ
X-Received: by 10.66.139.138 with SMTP id qy10mr20925293pab.30.1437065519674;
Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.100.1.239] ([204.58.254.99])
by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id
he9sm8523413pbc.7.2015.07.16.09.51.57
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <55A7E0F2.2030400@thinlink.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:50:58 -0700
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <55A5A837.1090203@thinlink.com>
<2272402.KPsXmgHuuj@coldstorage> <55A6E98C.3090307@thinlink.com>
<2509294.8eWsy7oNj2@coldstorage>
In-Reply-To: <2509294.8eWsy7oNj2@coldstorage>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB 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] Mempool "Expected Byte Stay" policy
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: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:52:00 -0000
On 7/16/2015 2:38 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Wednesday 15. July 2015 16.15.24 Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> On 7/15/2015 12:18 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 14. July 2015 17.24.23 Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>>> Rule 2: A transaction and its dependents are evicted on its 2-hour
>>>> anniversary, whether space is required or not
>>> Instead of 2 hours, why not a number of blocks?
>> So users/wallets can know when they should rebroadcast and consider
>> increasing the fee.
>>
>>
>> Using 12 blocks, there is a 5% chance he has to wait 3 hours.*
>>
>> Using 120 minutes, there is only a .23% chance that fewer than 4 blocks
>> have occurred.**
> Using the good old saying; results in the past are no indication of the
> future.
> I see a logic error in your thinking.
>
> Your assumption that time is a better indicator is false. Naturally time
> itself is universal, but blocks are known by wallets too. Its just as good.
>
> This assumption of yours leans heavily on block mining times, and that is
> not guaranteed in the future. Imagine one day half the miners dropping and
> blocks take much longer for a week or so. Your assumptions just broke the
> mempool.
>
It's not a question of right vs. wrong. Either method has consequences
for user expectations and behavior.
With fixed-block mempool expiration, the expiration time is variable.
User can get an alert, but at an unpredictable time.
With fixed-timeout, the likelihood of expiration is more variable
(expiration occurrence is unpredictable regardless), but any expiration
will occur at the timeout.
|
